We don't need any more post-election analysis. This is not the post-election analysis you were looking for. These are just my own feelings on what happened.
May has been awful pretty much from day one of her premiership. Her lack of judgement is only slightly worse than her love of meaningless phrases. She likes to talk about unifying the country but has made NO effort to do so. She talk(ed)s of "Strong and Stable Government" just after calling an election that risks total uncertainty before the Brexit negotiations.
Over the last few days that lack of judgement has become obvious even to many True Believing Tories. Her election trouble was not inevitable (forgetting for a moment the election itself was absolutely unnecessary). If she'd compromised on her Brexit message (yes the referendum was won by Leave but the result was close, throw the Remainers a bone!) and truly united the nation. If she'd thought through the need for a positive message at election time ("Only I can save the country" works when you're the challenger, not when you represent the 7 year incumbent party). If she'd actually explained ANYTHING she planned to do after an increased majority was given.
Some still deceive themselves (one of her outgoing advisors still thinks she is a unifying Prime Minister!) but most accept she misread the mood of the nation.
However she didn't misread the mood of the right-wing electorate. Among all this fuss about her failures many seem to be missing the sheer number of people who did vote for her. Her problem was Labour also had a huge number vote for them. After the Tories destroyed the Lib Dems in 2015, the progressive vote wasn't as split as it used to be and with the Brexit message former Lib Dem voters who supported that nice Mr Cameron aren't likely to stick with the UKIP-courting Tories of 2017. Tory strategy of defeat the Lib Dems was a thought about only short-term without thinking that it might not be the best idea long-term.
And Labour. A few seats up from their 2010 result when they went into Opposition. The glory of this result is more to do with expectation management than a stunning victory. A check mate of a Tory majority. Now if Labour can keep their voters, and wait out the disasters that seem inevitable under the current Tory leadership and subsequent drop in Tory support, they could win their own landslide at the next election. But that is a big ask. Whether they could do better with a less left-wing, non-terrorist supporting leader is academic. Corbyn did better than expected. Big whoop.
Speaking of low expectations... didn't the Lib Dems do well? Sure we lost the greatest Parliamentarian of this century so far and vote share. Sure we failed to gain back second place status in some seats we were previously in contention for. Sure our campaign barely registered nationally. Sure our leader often failed to convince he really meant things. But 50% seat increase! Big whoop.
Speaking of failures... the SNP. :)
May has enough seats to try to be a minority Government. There isn't any other viable option. Alas she's decided to go for broke and is looking to get into bed with the DUP for an overall majority of... 2.
A coalition of chaos with terrorist supporters and bigots? Well, you can't say May didn't see this coming.
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 June 2017
Saturday, 9 February 2013
How The UK Government May End Up Creating "Gay Marriage" Rather Than #EqualMarriage
Once more I risk falling into a traditionalists view of the "homosexual activist" being forever unsatisfied by the crumbs that they throw at us. But the more I look at the Government's proposed Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, the more I think the Government is doing it wrong.
Of course I've already made plain my problems with the bill (which ignores consummation, adultery, the pension problems, opposite-sex civil partnerships and the restitution of marriages dissolved due to getting a GRC). Some of these oversights stand a good chance of getting fixed as the bill progresses through the legislative process (I'm thinking of submitting evidence to the committee myself on these points).
But there is something far more depressing about this bill and that is in its language. As our opponents like to complain, language matters. Added to the consummation and adultery issues it would appear the Government is creating two types of marriage. The way it is approaching amending the pertinent Acts is rather different to how other English speaking administrations have gone about it.
Canada's legislation defined marriage as:
The problem seems to be that the Government is terrified of all those who screamed bloody murder at the idea of husband, wife, mother, father etc. being removed from the language of law. They warned of Progenitor A and Progenitor B being used instead and made a great big song and dance about how we'd all be banned from refering to our wife as "my wife" (just like in Spain, Canada, the US states etc. where no one says that anymore [note this is sarcasm for any Coalition for Marriage supporters reading]). In an effort to compromise they are dangerously close to simply putting into law the concept of "gay marriage". Which somewhat misses the point.
Is this really what I imagined when I asked for marriage equality? No. I was expecting something more along the Canadian model. Does this mean we shouldn't support the bill? No. Just as I wished our "friends" in the House of Commons had been more honest during the Civil Partnership debates but still voted in favour, I would wish that our allies in Parliament now stated clearly these concerns exist then held their noses and voted it through (if satisfactory amendments weren't forthcoming of course). It may be a flawed bill, but it may be the best we are going to get.
But one upside is that this rather undermines the Coalition for Marriage's concerns about the Government redefining marriage. Nope, they are just making a new kind. Nothing for you guys to worry about at all.
Of course I've already made plain my problems with the bill (which ignores consummation, adultery, the pension problems, opposite-sex civil partnerships and the restitution of marriages dissolved due to getting a GRC). Some of these oversights stand a good chance of getting fixed as the bill progresses through the legislative process (I'm thinking of submitting evidence to the committee myself on these points).
But there is something far more depressing about this bill and that is in its language. As our opponents like to complain, language matters. Added to the consummation and adultery issues it would appear the Government is creating two types of marriage. The way it is approaching amending the pertinent Acts is rather different to how other English speaking administrations have gone about it.
Canada's legislation defined marriage as:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.Maine did it thusly:
Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.And Maryland amended the bit in [] to read:
Only a marriage between [a man and a woman] TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING is valid in this StateThis is how you do "marriage equality". You make marriage gender-neutral. Though it is tricky, it is the clearest way to make marriage between two people the same regardless of the gender of the participants. So what does our Government's bill do?
Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.This is quite different to equal marriage. This is far more in keeping with South Africa's creation of different types of marriage, which they only continued when they created "Same-sex marriages". What becomes clear, reading through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is that the Government is creating same-sex marriage (dare I say "gay marriage) and is quite clearly not working towards marriage equality in the way most nations and states have done in the past. Here are a few more quotes from the bill.
Effect of extension of marriage
(1) In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples.Same, same but different. Marriage rights will be equal, which is something to celebrate, but it still clearly states the difference.
Northern Ireland
2 (1) Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under 30the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership formed under the law of England and Wales (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).Dealing with Scotland and Northern Ireland differently is a necessity due to our increasingly messy constitution but again same-sex couples are not married, they are same-sex married which means they can be separated out and treated differently in other parts of the UK.
In section 8(2) (meaning of certain terms), in the definition of “guaranteed minimum pension”, after “widower’s” insert “, surviving same sex spouse’s”.Widowers and same-sex spouses. That is what we get. Just like "Married or in a civil partnership". Same, same but different. To give it credit, the bill does look to the future and has this to say on future legislation:
(2)The following expressions have the meanings given— (a)“husband” includes a man who is married to another man; (b)“wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman; (c) “widower” includes a man whose marriage to another man ended with the other man’s death (d)“widow” includes a woman whose marriage to another woman ended with the other woman’s death;and related expressions are to be construed accordingly.So yes, going forward things will become a little more equal. But it is a mess, isn't it?
The problem seems to be that the Government is terrified of all those who screamed bloody murder at the idea of husband, wife, mother, father etc. being removed from the language of law. They warned of Progenitor A and Progenitor B being used instead and made a great big song and dance about how we'd all be banned from refering to our wife as "my wife" (just like in Spain, Canada, the US states etc. where no one says that anymore [note this is sarcasm for any Coalition for Marriage supporters reading]). In an effort to compromise they are dangerously close to simply putting into law the concept of "gay marriage". Which somewhat misses the point.
Is this really what I imagined when I asked for marriage equality? No. I was expecting something more along the Canadian model. Does this mean we shouldn't support the bill? No. Just as I wished our "friends" in the House of Commons had been more honest during the Civil Partnership debates but still voted in favour, I would wish that our allies in Parliament now stated clearly these concerns exist then held their noses and voted it through (if satisfactory amendments weren't forthcoming of course). It may be a flawed bill, but it may be the best we are going to get.
But one upside is that this rather undermines the Coalition for Marriage's concerns about the Government redefining marriage. Nope, they are just making a new kind. Nothing for you guys to worry about at all.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
The Differences Between #EqualMarriage And What The Coalition Are Proposing
This month the Westminster Government announced its proposals for marriage equality in England and Wales. I was pleased to see them expand their plans beyond just civil marriages to include religious marriages. However there remain some issues with the proposals that need to be addressed before legislation is introduced.
1. Equal Civil Partnerships
I'm no fan of civil partnerships (I'd hope, by now, you'd be more than aware of this!) but they do exist. And they shall continue to exist under the current Government proposals. However there are no plans to open them up to mixed-sex couples. I suspect the reasoning behind this remains the same as when civil partnerships were first discussed; the Government worries that religious and conservative people will feel that giving mixed-sex couples a choice might undermine marriage. I.e. people might prefer them to getting married. It is a real concern, however in not giving a choice to mixed-sex couples the Government not only discriminates against mixed-sex couples but also allows opponents of equal marriage to claim LGBT folk have special rights.
Even more concerningly it'll mean that civil partners where one half of the couple gets a GRC will have their civil partnership turned into a marriage. Hardly respecting their right to choose!
For the sake of fairness, and consistency, it is only right civil partnerships be open to couples regardless of gender.
2. Equal Pension Rights
One of those annoying differences between civil partnerships and marriage, and it is not fixed by the Government's plans. Same-sex married couples will still need to take pension providers to court under the Equality Act in order to get what mixed-sex couples get without question.
3. Dissolved Marriages Not Restored
Here's something Cllr. Sarah Brown was talking about well before these proposals were announced. Read the linked article. Not resolved by the Government's plans.
4. Adultery And Consummation
Just to cheer us gay guys up, the Government is clear that married men who have sex with men will not be committing adultery. Oh sure, you can still use it as an excuse to divorce but its not real adultery. Just putting that out there (my number is available upon request).
Of course I jest (about the number, you've probably got it already ;) ), but seriously Scotland manages to do without the legal concept of consummation and the Catholic church hasn't exploded. And why is it so difficult to make adultery into the concept of having sex with someone who you aren't married to?
Rather than use the opportunity to make marriage laws modern, or at least clear them up a little, the Government appears to be making two different kinds of marriage. Which is absolutely not what any one was asking for...
The Coalition need to think carefully about why they are making these changes, because right now it would appear to be paying a lot of lip service to the idea but not quite grasping the concept. Let us hope some amendments can come from within the Lib Dem contingent in the Commons (as Labour appear hellbent on defending the already protected churches rather than LGBT people).
As I've alluded to in my last few posts, I'm moving on from this topic. I just thought I'd put my issues with the current proposals out there clearly before I head off in search of angry pastures new. I wish you a very Happy New Year, Dear Constant Reader and I'll see you back here for something completely different next week...
1. Equal Civil Partnerships
I'm no fan of civil partnerships (I'd hope, by now, you'd be more than aware of this!) but they do exist. And they shall continue to exist under the current Government proposals. However there are no plans to open them up to mixed-sex couples. I suspect the reasoning behind this remains the same as when civil partnerships were first discussed; the Government worries that religious and conservative people will feel that giving mixed-sex couples a choice might undermine marriage. I.e. people might prefer them to getting married. It is a real concern, however in not giving a choice to mixed-sex couples the Government not only discriminates against mixed-sex couples but also allows opponents of equal marriage to claim LGBT folk have special rights.
Even more concerningly it'll mean that civil partners where one half of the couple gets a GRC will have their civil partnership turned into a marriage. Hardly respecting their right to choose!
For the sake of fairness, and consistency, it is only right civil partnerships be open to couples regardless of gender.
2. Equal Pension Rights
One of those annoying differences between civil partnerships and marriage, and it is not fixed by the Government's plans. Same-sex married couples will still need to take pension providers to court under the Equality Act in order to get what mixed-sex couples get without question.
3. Dissolved Marriages Not Restored
Here's something Cllr. Sarah Brown was talking about well before these proposals were announced. Read the linked article. Not resolved by the Government's plans.
4. Adultery And Consummation
Just to cheer us gay guys up, the Government is clear that married men who have sex with men will not be committing adultery. Oh sure, you can still use it as an excuse to divorce but its not real adultery. Just putting that out there (my number is available upon request).
Of course I jest (about the number, you've probably got it already ;) ), but seriously Scotland manages to do without the legal concept of consummation and the Catholic church hasn't exploded. And why is it so difficult to make adultery into the concept of having sex with someone who you aren't married to?
Rather than use the opportunity to make marriage laws modern, or at least clear them up a little, the Government appears to be making two different kinds of marriage. Which is absolutely not what any one was asking for...
The Coalition need to think carefully about why they are making these changes, because right now it would appear to be paying a lot of lip service to the idea but not quite grasping the concept. Let us hope some amendments can come from within the Lib Dem contingent in the Commons (as Labour appear hellbent on defending the already protected churches rather than LGBT people).
As I've alluded to in my last few posts, I'm moving on from this topic. I just thought I'd put my issues with the current proposals out there clearly before I head off in search of angry pastures new. I wish you a very Happy New Year, Dear Constant Reader and I'll see you back here for something completely different next week...
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
My Response To The Coalition's #EqualMarriage Consultation Response
Just as summer follows spring and Catholics follow the Pope, it is inevitable that upon the release of any Government proposals on marriage equality there will be a grumpy blog post from Jae. It is a tradition I refuse to break with but, you'll be pleased to know, part of my grumpiness is directed at those attacking the Government for once.
The Government's response to their consultation can be found here.
Before I moan about the problems I have with the proposals, I must firstly get something off my chest. These proposals, to allow religious as well as civil marriage equality, are far more than I was expecting. I must say I am extremely pleased with how far the Government has come since it initially set out its plans for civil marriage equality. David Cameron, Maria Miller and the other Tories championing this policy deserve special praise for being so brave! And of course I have no doubt that wise words came from the Lib Dems involved (such as Lynne Featherstone) which helped push them in the right direction! Thank you to all those who have worked hard on this consultation response.
Now, there are a few things I hope we can persuade them to consider further...
1) I've made it clear before that one of my major issues with the civil partnership/marriage divide was its impact on transgendered people and their significant others. Whilst it is good to see that those in marriages will no longer need to divorce to get a GRC, and those in a civil partnership can "convert" to a marriage, there is the problem that those who have had to divorce in the past get no restitution under these proposals. This is a significant slap in the face to those mistreated for so many years. Zoe blogs on this is a little more detail.
2) My number 2 problem with the current situation was with the pensions disparity explained so simply in this video:
Sadly it does not appear that these proposals will fix this either.
3. Mixed-sex civil partnerships are still off the agenda. This has some affect on transgender rights and, quite frankly, also seems bizarre. Why allow same-sex civil partnerships AND equal marriage but no civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples? It gives same-sex couples a greater choice than mixed couples!! That is discrimination, and I hope it is challenged in court.
4. Consummation and adultery as legal concepts remain completely unchanged. Same-sex married couples will not be the same as mixed-sex married couples.
So whilst we have marriage equality in name, I feel what we are getting is just civil partnerships renamed as marriage. It is hardly radical and certainly not something our opponents should be at all worried about. Why they are is beyond me... oh wait no it isn't. They are mostly stupid.
Yes, there is plenty I feel the Government should change and I hope greater minds than mine are currently working on proposing suitable amendments to do just that during the Parliamentary process.
In other grumpy news...
The Government has made it quite clear that they wish to defend religious liberty. They have called these protections a "quadruple lock".
Much has been said about the Government's plan to make Church of England same-sex marriages illegal. Many have complained this flies in the face of religious liberty. I have sympathy for that position however in practical terms I just don't see how it matters. Even without it the other protections would forbid any Anglican priest marrying a same-sex couple on Anglican property without the Church of England expressly endorsing the practice. I feel it is more important to focus on disestablishing the church rather than attempting to defend their religious freedom on the micro level. True religious freedom is for those who aren't in an established church.
On the Church in Wales front, that seems more complicated and needs some thought as they are disestablished but are they seriously going to be allowed same-sex marriages any time soon?
Other myths that appear to be developing on Twitter include:
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
The Government's response to their consultation can be found here.
Before I moan about the problems I have with the proposals, I must firstly get something off my chest. These proposals, to allow religious as well as civil marriage equality, are far more than I was expecting. I must say I am extremely pleased with how far the Government has come since it initially set out its plans for civil marriage equality. David Cameron, Maria Miller and the other Tories championing this policy deserve special praise for being so brave! And of course I have no doubt that wise words came from the Lib Dems involved (such as Lynne Featherstone) which helped push them in the right direction! Thank you to all those who have worked hard on this consultation response.
Now, there are a few things I hope we can persuade them to consider further...
1) I've made it clear before that one of my major issues with the civil partnership/marriage divide was its impact on transgendered people and their significant others. Whilst it is good to see that those in marriages will no longer need to divorce to get a GRC, and those in a civil partnership can "convert" to a marriage, there is the problem that those who have had to divorce in the past get no restitution under these proposals. This is a significant slap in the face to those mistreated for so many years. Zoe blogs on this is a little more detail.
2) My number 2 problem with the current situation was with the pensions disparity explained so simply in this video:
Sadly it does not appear that these proposals will fix this either.
Policy on public service pension scheme in the UK is reserved to the UK Government. Those schemes where policy is reserved will treat same-sex married couples as civil partners. This means, that for the majority of schemes, survivor benefits for same-sex married couples will apply from 6 April 1988Thanks to Mark Collyer for keeping an eye on this one.
3. Mixed-sex civil partnerships are still off the agenda. This has some affect on transgender rights and, quite frankly, also seems bizarre. Why allow same-sex civil partnerships AND equal marriage but no civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples? It gives same-sex couples a greater choice than mixed couples!! That is discrimination, and I hope it is challenged in court.
4. Consummation and adultery as legal concepts remain completely unchanged. Same-sex married couples will not be the same as mixed-sex married couples.
So whilst we have marriage equality in name, I feel what we are getting is just civil partnerships renamed as marriage. It is hardly radical and certainly not something our opponents should be at all worried about. Why they are is beyond me... oh wait no it isn't. They are mostly stupid.
Yes, there is plenty I feel the Government should change and I hope greater minds than mine are currently working on proposing suitable amendments to do just that during the Parliamentary process.
In other grumpy news...
The Government has made it quite clear that they wish to defend religious liberty. They have called these protections a "quadruple lock".
Key protections
we will make it explicitly clear in the legislation that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit their premises to be used for this purpose
we will devise an 'opt-in' system where same-sex couples can only marry according to religious rites on religious premises where the governing religious body has expressly consented; and the legislation will make it clear that no law requires any religious organisations to opt in to that system
we will also amend the Equality Act 2010 so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose
the legislation will not apply to the Church of England (or Church in Wales) so that they will not be able in law to marry same-sex couples and will not be able to opt in to do so without further changes to primary legislation. Therefore, there will be no interference with the Church of England's Canon lawThis has done little to appease the bug-eyed loons on the opposing side, which is understandable given that they won't be appeased until LGBT folk are kept away from the "normal" folk. But it has caused a small Twitterstorm from people on the supportive side too.
Much has been said about the Government's plan to make Church of England same-sex marriages illegal. Many have complained this flies in the face of religious liberty. I have sympathy for that position however in practical terms I just don't see how it matters. Even without it the other protections would forbid any Anglican priest marrying a same-sex couple on Anglican property without the Church of England expressly endorsing the practice. I feel it is more important to focus on disestablishing the church rather than attempting to defend their religious freedom on the micro level. True religious freedom is for those who aren't in an established church.
On the Church in Wales front, that seems more complicated and needs some thought as they are disestablished but are they seriously going to be allowed same-sex marriages any time soon?
Other myths that appear to be developing on Twitter include:
- A ban on marriages in the Church of England is a ban on all religious marriage equality. That is just not true at all.
- A ban on marriages in the Church of England means the Government is not allowing marriage equality at all. This is one I've seen particularly stupid opponents stating. This appears to flow from them making the mistake above at the same time as believing civil marriages and civil partnerships are the same thing. Dumb.
- That those angry at Church of England ban are trying to force equal marriage upon the Church of England. I've seen some UKIPpers and people like Guido Fawkes try this one. Mostly these angry people are defending the Church of England's right to choose. That is about religious freedom, and UKIP and Guido Fawkes are supposed to be concerned about that sort of thing. Alas, only when it is politically expedient it would seem.
More concerning than these myths are the few people I've noticed declaring that churches, especially the Church of England, should be forced to marry same-sex couples. This is completely against the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and I would urge those proposing such authoritarian things to think very careful about that sort of move. We are meant to be better than that.
So... yes I am of course delighted that we have reached the point where legislation on marriage equality is going to be debated in the House of Commons. However I have some serious concerns about what is missing, about what some well-meaning "allies" are saying and on what effect some of the nastier opponents publicly views (such as that parents don't want their gay children) will have on LGBT young people.
I know, I know. I'm never satisfied!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Remember Maria Miller, Religious Freedom Works Both Way
I very much welcome Maria Miller's commitment to protecting churches who choose not to marry same-sex couples. It is right that we protect religious freedom.
How can we say it is right that LGBT friendly religious groups be banned from holding legally recognised same-sex marriages? Is it right that if they wish to hold even a civil partnership they may end up paying higher fees or that they may be denied the right to at all due to health and safety concerns (even though they carry out marriages in their building already!)?
If Maria Miller and the Coalition Government really believe in religious freedom they will put forward proposals for full marriage equality with the correct safeguards in place to protect all those unwelcoming groups who want nothing to do with it. Otherwise their claims to be concerned about religious freedom will be shown to be no more than subservience to certain religion's views over others.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
“To make sure there is no element of doubt, we would be legislating to protect the rights of religious institutions to continue to have freedom on this matter.”But is she really dedicated to religious freedom? Given the proposals remain only about "civil marriage" (a novel legal concept I understand) doesn't she feel the proposals themselves aren't supportive of religious freedom?
How can we say it is right that LGBT friendly religious groups be banned from holding legally recognised same-sex marriages? Is it right that if they wish to hold even a civil partnership they may end up paying higher fees or that they may be denied the right to at all due to health and safety concerns (even though they carry out marriages in their building already!)?
If Maria Miller and the Coalition Government really believe in religious freedom they will put forward proposals for full marriage equality with the correct safeguards in place to protect all those unwelcoming groups who want nothing to do with it. Otherwise their claims to be concerned about religious freedom will be shown to be no more than subservience to certain religion's views over others.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
The PoFA Is The Reason I Still Believe In The Lib Dems
Way back in May 2010, I made it clear rolling back Labour's draconian laws and attacks on our civil liberties was my red line. The completion of this roll-back would, in my mind, make all the coming pain worth it.
Well that time has now arrived. The Protection of Freedoms Act has rolled back several of the worst attacks on civil liberties.
Now let's not pretend it's perfect, 28-day detention just becomes 14-day detention and there are lots of provisos on the end of the DNA database, but this is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for when the Coalition began. After decades of eroding our civil liberties, the Government has made a clear statement that it's changing the relationship between the state and the individual.
The fight isn't over, there are plenty of other civil liberty issues that need addressing. But this is a great leap forward towards a more liberal country.
So on my Lib Dems in Government checklist we have: raising the personal income tax helping those on the lowest incomes, fighting attacks on civil liberties, supporting the most radical House of Lords reform in a century and pushing ahead with marriage equality. Those aren't the only Liberal Democrat "wins" in Coalition but those are the ones that remind me that, despite the attacks from the left, this Government is not unalloyed evil.
The Liberal Democrats are still fighting on the side of the angels.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Well that time has now arrived. The Protection of Freedoms Act has rolled back several of the worst attacks on civil liberties.
A landmark move to roll back Labour’s surveillance state has today become law.
The Protection of Freedoms Act will:
- stop councils snooping
- end the storage of DNA of innocent people
- reduce the bureaucracy of CRB checks
- end 28-day detention
- stop schools deciding on their own to take fingerprints of children
- Make stalking a criminal offence
- End wheel clamping on private land
- Delete historical convictions for men who have had consensual gay sex with someone who was over 16
Now let's not pretend it's perfect, 28-day detention just becomes 14-day detention and there are lots of provisos on the end of the DNA database, but this is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for when the Coalition began. After decades of eroding our civil liberties, the Government has made a clear statement that it's changing the relationship between the state and the individual.
The fight isn't over, there are plenty of other civil liberty issues that need addressing. But this is a great leap forward towards a more liberal country.
So on my Lib Dems in Government checklist we have: raising the personal income tax helping those on the lowest incomes, fighting attacks on civil liberties, supporting the most radical House of Lords reform in a century and pushing ahead with marriage equality. Those aren't the only Liberal Democrat "wins" in Coalition but those are the ones that remind me that, despite the attacks from the left, this Government is not unalloyed evil.
The Liberal Democrats are still fighting on the side of the angels.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Government Internet Snooping - Please Let This Be An April Fools
It is being report today that the Government plans to introduce legislation to monitor emails, texts and internet surfing history. It feels like something New Labour would want, and in fact it's very similar to a law they unsuccessfully tried to introduce.
I've put up with tuition fees, the NHS bill, disability benefit cuts, even the lukewarm marriage equality consultation. But it would be immoral for me to remain in a party that, whilst in Government, allowed this sort of attack on our basic freedoms to go through. I'm fairly confident that our Lib Dem ministers in Government will vigorously oppose this snooping law. Well they better do so anyway.
Seriously, this Government has lost it's way. They were supposed to roll back New Labour's authoritarian legislation not create more!!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
I've put up with tuition fees, the NHS bill, disability benefit cuts, even the lukewarm marriage equality consultation. But it would be immoral for me to remain in a party that, whilst in Government, allowed this sort of attack on our basic freedoms to go through. I'm fairly confident that our Lib Dem ministers in Government will vigorously oppose this snooping law. Well they better do so anyway.
Seriously, this Government has lost it's way. They were supposed to roll back New Labour's authoritarian legislation not create more!!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
What Have The Lib Dems Done For Me?
It's easy to get hysterical over the "betrayal" of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who have "sold out" their voters and the poor for a moment in the limelight of Government. It's easy to lament over what might have been in a Rainbow Coalition or a quickly dissolved Tory minority Government. Tuition fees. Disability benefits. The NHS. There's plenty to beat the Lib Dems up over (if you disagree with the Coalition's positions that is, something I'm still not clear on myself).
But there is plenty of good coming out of the Coalition too. Things that are changing our country for the better in ways that seem irreversible.
The raising of the personal allowance thresholds on income tax stands out as both a major shift in how we look at "progressive" taxation and in the lives of a great many people.
I was sitting at work a few months ago and one of the part-timers at the company I work for was talking about how strange it was that she was no longer paying income tax. She said it was absolutely fantastic to get that little bit extra a month in her pay packet. I was quick to point out that this was due to a Lib Dem policy that the Government was pursuing (never miss an opportunity to evangelise...) But when I explained that the threshold would increase again this year, several other colleagues realised they too would soon be out of income tax altogether. They were, needless to say, extremely pleased. These people are generally mothers, keen to stay in work but glad for every extra penny to help them care for their families. It was great to see that something from the Lib Dem manifesto was making such a visible, positive impact on the lives of people I know. And it wasn't just something good for them.
I'm on a low salary and because my other half is quite a bit better off than I, I do not meet the requirements for the tax credits people on my wage get. Of course that doesn't take into account how we live and that we keep our finances relatively separate. The personal allowance increase last year was thus an excellent thing for someone like me who doesn't get the benefits many others on a similar wage get. That little extra money allowed me to buy some extra holiday days without being any worse off, which allowed me to spend more time with my other half during a particularly tough year health-wise. Those 5 extra days really made a difference to my quality of life.
This year my pay packet will look even healthier, and in the next year and the next. That is something we can all thank the Lib Dems for. Something that will help those on a low income regardless of their lifestyle, relationships and family situation. That is quite something indeed!
Then comes something pretty close to my heart. Marriage equality. Despite obviously my usual objections to it not being enough (I didn't give Labour an easy ride over civil partnerships, so I can't give the Coalition an easy ride of marriage equality), this is something that will touch me dearly. I have been in a long term relationship for nigh on 8 years. It's been a while since we started considering marriage. The idea that this is now no longer just a pie in the sky dream but something that may actually happen in the next couple of years leaves me a little over-excited.
On a deeply personal level this, and the Lib Dems continuing fight for religious marriage equality, leaves me so very thankful to the Lib Dems. If I live another 50 years I'd still thank them for this wonderful, wonderful chance to be able to express my love for the man I adore. Marriage equality is a huge leap forward.
Onwards next to talk of Lords reform. Our unwritten constitution is at once a thing of wonder and a monstrous mess. The House of Lords has been picked at, moulded and defanged over and over again in the 20th century. It is now nothing more than a Frankenstein's monster. It's time for wholesale reform of this mess. Imagine a more democratic, a more powerful and a more decisive House of Lords.
Well soon we may not need to imagine any longer, for the Lib Dems in Government have managed to get this much mishandled problem reviewed and options considered. If the Lib Dems managed to get even half the reforms proposed through, they could disappear at the next election but never be forgotten. It would be the most monumental constitutional change since the 1909 People's Budget forced a previous showdown between the Commons and the Lords.
These, of course, are the three things that most excite and interest me, but they are by no means the only Lib Dem wins in the Government.
The Lib Dems have compromised in Coalition. They've worked with the Tories in doing things that make every Lib Dem member a little uncomfortable. But it hasn't been in vain. There is a lot to be thankful for. I can thank the Lib Dems for a better quality of life and the chance to legally commit to my relationship and enjoy the protections that result. And that's after just two years of the Lib Dems in a Coalition. Imagine what a Lib Dem majority could achieve!
Thank you Liberal Democrats, I shan't forget the good things you've done!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
But there is plenty of good coming out of the Coalition too. Things that are changing our country for the better in ways that seem irreversible.
The raising of the personal allowance thresholds on income tax stands out as both a major shift in how we look at "progressive" taxation and in the lives of a great many people.
I was sitting at work a few months ago and one of the part-timers at the company I work for was talking about how strange it was that she was no longer paying income tax. She said it was absolutely fantastic to get that little bit extra a month in her pay packet. I was quick to point out that this was due to a Lib Dem policy that the Government was pursuing (never miss an opportunity to evangelise...) But when I explained that the threshold would increase again this year, several other colleagues realised they too would soon be out of income tax altogether. They were, needless to say, extremely pleased. These people are generally mothers, keen to stay in work but glad for every extra penny to help them care for their families. It was great to see that something from the Lib Dem manifesto was making such a visible, positive impact on the lives of people I know. And it wasn't just something good for them.
I'm on a low salary and because my other half is quite a bit better off than I, I do not meet the requirements for the tax credits people on my wage get. Of course that doesn't take into account how we live and that we keep our finances relatively separate. The personal allowance increase last year was thus an excellent thing for someone like me who doesn't get the benefits many others on a similar wage get. That little extra money allowed me to buy some extra holiday days without being any worse off, which allowed me to spend more time with my other half during a particularly tough year health-wise. Those 5 extra days really made a difference to my quality of life.
This year my pay packet will look even healthier, and in the next year and the next. That is something we can all thank the Lib Dems for. Something that will help those on a low income regardless of their lifestyle, relationships and family situation. That is quite something indeed!
Then comes something pretty close to my heart. Marriage equality. Despite obviously my usual objections to it not being enough (I didn't give Labour an easy ride over civil partnerships, so I can't give the Coalition an easy ride of marriage equality), this is something that will touch me dearly. I have been in a long term relationship for nigh on 8 years. It's been a while since we started considering marriage. The idea that this is now no longer just a pie in the sky dream but something that may actually happen in the next couple of years leaves me a little over-excited.
On a deeply personal level this, and the Lib Dems continuing fight for religious marriage equality, leaves me so very thankful to the Lib Dems. If I live another 50 years I'd still thank them for this wonderful, wonderful chance to be able to express my love for the man I adore. Marriage equality is a huge leap forward.
Onwards next to talk of Lords reform. Our unwritten constitution is at once a thing of wonder and a monstrous mess. The House of Lords has been picked at, moulded and defanged over and over again in the 20th century. It is now nothing more than a Frankenstein's monster. It's time for wholesale reform of this mess. Imagine a more democratic, a more powerful and a more decisive House of Lords.
Well soon we may not need to imagine any longer, for the Lib Dems in Government have managed to get this much mishandled problem reviewed and options considered. If the Lib Dems managed to get even half the reforms proposed through, they could disappear at the next election but never be forgotten. It would be the most monumental constitutional change since the 1909 People's Budget forced a previous showdown between the Commons and the Lords.
These, of course, are the three things that most excite and interest me, but they are by no means the only Lib Dem wins in the Government.
The Lib Dems have compromised in Coalition. They've worked with the Tories in doing things that make every Lib Dem member a little uncomfortable. But it hasn't been in vain. There is a lot to be thankful for. I can thank the Lib Dems for a better quality of life and the chance to legally commit to my relationship and enjoy the protections that result. And that's after just two years of the Lib Dems in a Coalition. Imagine what a Lib Dem majority could achieve!
Thank you Liberal Democrats, I shan't forget the good things you've done!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Gay Marriage To Be Legal: No I'm Not Happy!
I'm being forced to become a walking stereotype thanks to the Coalition. One of the "crimes" LGBT people are accused of by political homophobes is that we are never satisfied, that when we make one advance we always want more. The Government plan to legalise same-sex marriage, after yet another consultation, and yet I'm still not happy. I'm not pressing for more than I've ever demanded before, I'm just being consistent.
I also think that given the mess made by the Labour Government over civil partnerships, it's important to open those up to heterosexuals just as we open marriage up to same-sex couples.
The proposals by the Coalition Goverment are another step in the right direction. I'm sick and tired of steps in the right direction. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I try to be reasonable. But just how many steps in the right direction must we all endure before there is one marriage law for all in this country?
This does not solve the problems faced by transgendered people and allow a legally continuous partnerships should they transition from one gender to another. It forces religious LGB people who want to marry their same sex partner to instead civilly partner them. It is simply a compromise too far.
Lynne Featherstone and the Liberal Democrats will crow over this "advance" as it "goes well beyond the Coalition agreement". They may crow over abandoning equality before the law as a principle, I shall hang my head in shame instead.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
A Home Office spokesman said that the consultation on reforming the marriage laws would only cover civil marriage for same sex couples and not religious marriage. Ministers have ruled out making it compulsory for churches or other faith groups to host gay or lesbian marriages.
The Home Office also made clear that one option that will not be included in the formal consultation on reforming the marriage laws is giving heterosexual couples reciprocal rights to civil partnership ceremoniesI used to say I don't know anyone who wants to force a non-cooperative church to carry out same-sex marriages but thanks to Mike Weatherley, a misguided Tory MP, I can no longer say this. It's certainly not something I've ever wanted to do. However, I believe it's an important principle of religious freedom to allow religious organisations, who wish to marry same-sex couples, to do so.
I also think that given the mess made by the Labour Government over civil partnerships, it's important to open those up to heterosexuals just as we open marriage up to same-sex couples.
The proposals by the Coalition Goverment are another step in the right direction. I'm sick and tired of steps in the right direction. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I try to be reasonable. But just how many steps in the right direction must we all endure before there is one marriage law for all in this country?
This does not solve the problems faced by transgendered people and allow a legally continuous partnerships should they transition from one gender to another. It forces religious LGB people who want to marry their same sex partner to instead civilly partner them. It is simply a compromise too far.
Lynne Featherstone and the Liberal Democrats will crow over this "advance" as it "goes well beyond the Coalition agreement". They may crow over abandoning equality before the law as a principle, I shall hang my head in shame instead.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Thank You Lib Dems In Government
Given all the moaning I do here on this blog, I thought it was time to say something positive. And on this particular subject I can offer nothing but praise; the lowering of income tax. Since the change came about in April my pay packet is healthy enough for me to be able to buy an extra 5 days off of work a year, and still have a few extra pounds left over each month on top of what I was earning in the last tax year!
The extra time off allows me to enjoy life a little more, and doesn't affect my budget. For this I shall be eternally grateful. Given the range of good Lib Dem policies implemented by the Government so far, it's hard to choose a favourite but this one has got to be up there... Thank you!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
The extra time off allows me to enjoy life a little more, and doesn't affect my budget. For this I shall be eternally grateful. Given the range of good Lib Dem policies implemented by the Government so far, it's hard to choose a favourite but this one has got to be up there... Thank you!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Time For The Coalition (And It's Haters) To Grow Up
I've been asking for an open and honest Coalition since the start. The way Nick Clegg decided to go (to embrace every facet of the Coalition) was one I felt was not reflective of his "big idea" of the "new politics". I wanted the Tories and Lib Dems to be clear that they believed different things and were simply working together on a joint platform in the country's interests.
I know, I'm a naive idealist whose hopes would have been dashed against the rocks of a cynical population, a deceitful opposition and an idiotic media.
But now is the time for the Tories and Lib Dems to stop the "love-in" and remember we are individual parties who care enough about the future of our country to work alongside each other.
As a Liberal Democrat, NOTHING that has been revealed in the last few days by the Daily Telegraph's "sting" has been news to me at all. Did the media really fall for Labour's narrative about the Lib Dems being "yellow Tories"? Did Labour really believe it too? Why is it so shocking that Lib Dem Ministers have Lib Dem beliefs (and don't really like Tories)?
It's time for us to treat the population like grown ups and show there IS division in Government (no more than the not so secret internal war between Blairites and Brownites that we had for years under Labour) and that is actually part of our strength.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
I know, I'm a naive idealist whose hopes would have been dashed against the rocks of a cynical population, a deceitful opposition and an idiotic media.
But now is the time for the Tories and Lib Dems to stop the "love-in" and remember we are individual parties who care enough about the future of our country to work alongside each other.
As a Liberal Democrat, NOTHING that has been revealed in the last few days by the Daily Telegraph's "sting" has been news to me at all. Did the media really fall for Labour's narrative about the Lib Dems being "yellow Tories"? Did Labour really believe it too? Why is it so shocking that Lib Dem Ministers have Lib Dem beliefs (and don't really like Tories)?
It's time for us to treat the population like grown ups and show there IS division in Government (no more than the not so secret internal war between Blairites and Brownites that we had for years under Labour) and that is actually part of our strength.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Porn: The Great Litmus Test Of Freedom
Porn is controversial. It incites a great deal of discussion, from those concerned with protecting children and those protecting women, over it's morality. Governments seem desperate to control it, even in the face of it's widespread popularity. This controversy makes it a wonderful "litmus test" for whether a society is really free.
I've talked about it before in the context of wanting some answers over exploitation in pornography. Now we have Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, bringing it back into political debate after suggesting ISPs should force people to opt-in if they wish to view what the ISPs or the Government regard as porn.
Even if you buy into the idea that it's the Government's job to protect children from pornography in their own homes, I think this policy risks overreach (i.e. blocking sites that aren't pornographic especially regarding sexual health and LGBT issues) and would be nearly impossible to successfully implement. Kids don't "accidentally" wander onto porn sites, and those who want to find them will still find them even if most are blocked. So what does it achieve other than sending a signal to the country that the Government cares more about control and less about leaving people to live their lives the way they want?
A silly, nanny-state suggestion from a Government that was meant to know better.
Hands off our internet!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
I've talked about it before in the context of wanting some answers over exploitation in pornography. Now we have Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, bringing it back into political debate after suggesting ISPs should force people to opt-in if they wish to view what the ISPs or the Government regard as porn.
Even if you buy into the idea that it's the Government's job to protect children from pornography in their own homes, I think this policy risks overreach (i.e. blocking sites that aren't pornographic especially regarding sexual health and LGBT issues) and would be nearly impossible to successfully implement. Kids don't "accidentally" wander onto porn sites, and those who want to find them will still find them even if most are blocked. So what does it achieve other than sending a signal to the country that the Government cares more about control and less about leaving people to live their lives the way they want?
A silly, nanny-state suggestion from a Government that was meant to know better.
Hands off our internet!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Thursday, 16 December 2010
The End Of Child Detention
It's taken a little long than I would've liked (a year by the time it's completed) BUT finally the Coalition have overturned Labour's policy of imprisoning children. It's something that it has been very important, for me, to see implemented and I am glad we can finally see an end to this disgusting abuse of minors.
Now we must hope that control orders are axed by the Government in the New Year. Write to your MPs!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Now we must hope that control orders are axed by the Government in the New Year. Write to your MPs!
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Saturday, 11 December 2010
I Agree With Nick
Nothing turns my stomach more than seeing Lib Dem MPs turn against a personal pledge (rather than a manifesto promise) and vote with the Government on tuition fees. Whilst I may now be persuaded by the economic and political arguments about the need for tuition fees, I still cannot understand such a flagrant disregard for a personal promise.
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and believe an oath to be binding. A pledge of loyalty to a cause should not be broken so easily. And that's why, in a really messed up way, I still agree with Nick.
During the heady days of Cleggmania (remember those happy times?) I stood there at rallies in Watford and Blackheath and supported Nick Clegg's revival of our party. After the Coalition was formed I had reservations, though I was initially supportive, and then declared neutrality. My criticisms then still stand. But that doesn't mean I don't support what Nick Clegg is trying to do. He is trying to make this "brave experiment" of Coalition work. Our party has been in opposition (in various forms) for nearly a century. Clegg has rolled the dice. The worst that can happen is we remain an irrelevancy. The best is that he can prove liberal values, are good values. That we are above petty left-right squabbling and can work with other parties for the benefit of the country. That's a goal worth risking our necks for.
I must say I do find it amusing when Labour supporters scream "You're going to be out of Government for decades, an irrelevant footnote of history!". Have they not been paying attention? That's what we've always been. I know power for the sake of power is important to the Tories and Labour, but the loss of power is not likely to send Lib Dem activists into a collective depression! Perhaps this time, things can be different.
The preamble to our party Constitution states:
I still agree with that. And I still agree with Nick.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and believe an oath to be binding. A pledge of loyalty to a cause should not be broken so easily. And that's why, in a really messed up way, I still agree with Nick.
During the heady days of Cleggmania (remember those happy times?) I stood there at rallies in Watford and Blackheath and supported Nick Clegg's revival of our party. After the Coalition was formed I had reservations, though I was initially supportive, and then declared neutrality. My criticisms then still stand. But that doesn't mean I don't support what Nick Clegg is trying to do. He is trying to make this "brave experiment" of Coalition work. Our party has been in opposition (in various forms) for nearly a century. Clegg has rolled the dice. The worst that can happen is we remain an irrelevancy. The best is that he can prove liberal values, are good values. That we are above petty left-right squabbling and can work with other parties for the benefit of the country. That's a goal worth risking our necks for.
I must say I do find it amusing when Labour supporters scream "You're going to be out of Government for decades, an irrelevant footnote of history!". Have they not been paying attention? That's what we've always been. I know power for the sake of power is important to the Tories and Labour, but the loss of power is not likely to send Lib Dem activists into a collective depression! Perhaps this time, things can be different.
The preamble to our party Constitution states:
"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."
I still agree with that. And I still agree with Nick.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Child Detention - A Shame On Our Party
The continuing practice of locking up children in immigration removal centres is now not likely to be stopped until March next year (nearly a year after the announcement that they would be stopped).
Whilst it's great that Labour's disgusting policy is being overturned eventually, it's completely and utterly unacceptable that it be allowed to continue for even one day more.
We must loudly and clearly make it heard that we will not put up with bureaucratic delays on issues of basic human dignity. Cruelty against children should not be allowed to continue based on a timetable! I'm writing to my MP today to make my feelings plain. I urge you to do the same.
End Child Detention Now
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Whilst it's great that Labour's disgusting policy is being overturned eventually, it's completely and utterly unacceptable that it be allowed to continue for even one day more.
We must loudly and clearly make it heard that we will not put up with bureaucratic delays on issues of basic human dignity. Cruelty against children should not be allowed to continue based on a timetable! I'm writing to my MP today to make my feelings plain. I urge you to do the same.
End Child Detention Now
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Monday, 8 November 2010
No More Apologies - The Return Of The Cleggist Uprising
Remember the euphoria among Liberal Democrats in the lead up to the General Election this year? The excitement, the hope and the expectation would be dashed as the results came in showing an increase in vote but a loss of seats (typical FPTP result!). And to be honest we've been on the back foot since then. Every move we've made has been criticised from the left (TRAITORS!) and the right (OPPORTUNISTS!). And being the nice people we are, many of us have taken these attacks to heart, tried to make excuses, and ended up attacking our leadership to prove our "progressive" credentials.
I say no more! I've decided it's time for us to stop making excuses and apologising for things we're doing, to remember exactly what sort of people are making these attacks and start defending our record. The Liberal Democrats aren't just here to defend the policies of the Coalition, we're here as a real alternative to Labour and the Tories and as a party that is now ready for Government.
Remembering who we are up against is sometimes difficult. The bleeding hearts of Labour supporters seem so genuine that sometimes you really can feel like the bad guy. The claims of Lib Dem attacks on the poor and the needy hurt, because that is not what our party is about. But Labour's holier than thou attitude is betrayed by their record. Just look at the current furore over "forced labour for those on Jobseekers Allowance" (something I have my own concerns about and will blog about separately once the full policy is released on Thursday). You'd think the Coalition was reintroducing slavery given how manic some on the left have been about it. Where were these people when Labour introduced almost exactly the same policy two years ago?? Did these people betray and attack the poor and needy by voting for Labour at the last election based on this record? I'd say so.
Our policy to raise the income tax threshold has been adopted and during every year of the Coalition Government it shall be increased. That will help increase the take home pay of the lowest paid and help make work pay. We've restored the earnings link to pensions. We've introduced the pupil premium. Of course there have been things the Coalition has done that harms the most needy in our society. But when did Labour ever think about them as they poured our money into PFI schemes (that increased the costs to us and helped give massive profits to private companies)? When did Labour care about the students they now claim to represent when they introduced the tuition fees (that helped keep people like me out of university)? When did Labour care for the asylum seeker and the migrant when they were locking up their children, denying them appeals, sending them back to homophobic regimes if they were gay and sending out nasty leaflets attacking other races and religions???
By all means express unhappiness at some of the things the Coalition is doing, but remember not to let Labour forget their own part in backing business over people and pandering to bigots over keeping to their supposed values. Some in the Labour party have recognised this and called for change, but as an outsider looking in this call seems not be heard by most.
So we must remind people that Labour cannot be trusted. We've made compromises because we didn't win the election. We've only been able to stop the worst excesses of Tory ideology because we are the smaller partner in the Coalition. What excuse did Labour have when it lorded it over us all with large majorities? We've not broken promises because we DID NOT WIN nor does our party form a Government on it's own. Has Labour apologised yet for all it's broken promises, on electoral reform, on tuition fees and all the rest? No, and it's time to remind the electorate of that. Labour cannot be trusted.
And then we have the Tories. Our Coalition partners have been rather chummy of late haven't they? That's because they hope (and thanks to Labour and the left wing media they are succeeding) to pin all the blame and pain for their cuts on us! It's a typical tactic of the larger Coalition partner in coalitions across Europe. Don't let them get away with it. Whilst we're happy to support cuts where they are necessary, the Tories have embarked upon slashing and burning the state with a terrible glee. The bad stuff in the Coalition agreement isn't Liberal Democrat policy. It's Tory! We need to remember that we aren't the ones calling for benefit cuts for the disabled or forced labour for the unemployed. It's the Tories! That illiberal cap on immigration? It's not us! Remember our policy on immigration at the election, far more liberal and fair than Labour could even dream of. Of course we didn't want to impose this cap.
We must remind people that the Tories aren't "liberals". They don't believe in a "small state". They believe in a "no state" free for all , where the religious and the rich can dictate terms to the poor and the secular. They don't like Europe, they don't like immigration, they don't like individual freedom to defy social norms. They wish to use the poor, not to help them. We have, very successfully, kept most of these tendencies under control by being part of the Coalition and we should celebrate that. Imagine what the Tories would've done without us. It's time for us to stand up and remind people that if they don't like what the Coalition is doing, there is another way: vote Liberal Democrat next time! Labour will say all the right things in Opposition but their past record shows how they will not do anything different to the Tories, they'll just package measures more nicely. And the Tories on their own will just do more of the same. Much more.
We need to stop hiding in the dark pretending the Coalition isn't happening. We need to stand up and remind people that things can be different. If you are an Orange Booker or a Social Lib, you know the Tories and Labour are both wrong. We must present our policies once more and show people we are the progressive, sensible choice for our country. And we must stop apologising and start shouting from the rooftops: Vote Liberal Democrat. Be proud of what we've achieved in the Coalition and remember that there is much more we could achieve if only people would give us the chance.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
I say no more! I've decided it's time for us to stop making excuses and apologising for things we're doing, to remember exactly what sort of people are making these attacks and start defending our record. The Liberal Democrats aren't just here to defend the policies of the Coalition, we're here as a real alternative to Labour and the Tories and as a party that is now ready for Government.
Remembering who we are up against is sometimes difficult. The bleeding hearts of Labour supporters seem so genuine that sometimes you really can feel like the bad guy. The claims of Lib Dem attacks on the poor and the needy hurt, because that is not what our party is about. But Labour's holier than thou attitude is betrayed by their record. Just look at the current furore over "forced labour for those on Jobseekers Allowance" (something I have my own concerns about and will blog about separately once the full policy is released on Thursday). You'd think the Coalition was reintroducing slavery given how manic some on the left have been about it. Where were these people when Labour introduced almost exactly the same policy two years ago?? Did these people betray and attack the poor and needy by voting for Labour at the last election based on this record? I'd say so.
Our policy to raise the income tax threshold has been adopted and during every year of the Coalition Government it shall be increased. That will help increase the take home pay of the lowest paid and help make work pay. We've restored the earnings link to pensions. We've introduced the pupil premium. Of course there have been things the Coalition has done that harms the most needy in our society. But when did Labour ever think about them as they poured our money into PFI schemes (that increased the costs to us and helped give massive profits to private companies)? When did Labour care about the students they now claim to represent when they introduced the tuition fees (that helped keep people like me out of university)? When did Labour care for the asylum seeker and the migrant when they were locking up their children, denying them appeals, sending them back to homophobic regimes if they were gay and sending out nasty leaflets attacking other races and religions???
By all means express unhappiness at some of the things the Coalition is doing, but remember not to let Labour forget their own part in backing business over people and pandering to bigots over keeping to their supposed values. Some in the Labour party have recognised this and called for change, but as an outsider looking in this call seems not be heard by most.
So we must remind people that Labour cannot be trusted. We've made compromises because we didn't win the election. We've only been able to stop the worst excesses of Tory ideology because we are the smaller partner in the Coalition. What excuse did Labour have when it lorded it over us all with large majorities? We've not broken promises because we DID NOT WIN nor does our party form a Government on it's own. Has Labour apologised yet for all it's broken promises, on electoral reform, on tuition fees and all the rest? No, and it's time to remind the electorate of that. Labour cannot be trusted.
And then we have the Tories. Our Coalition partners have been rather chummy of late haven't they? That's because they hope (and thanks to Labour and the left wing media they are succeeding) to pin all the blame and pain for their cuts on us! It's a typical tactic of the larger Coalition partner in coalitions across Europe. Don't let them get away with it. Whilst we're happy to support cuts where they are necessary, the Tories have embarked upon slashing and burning the state with a terrible glee. The bad stuff in the Coalition agreement isn't Liberal Democrat policy. It's Tory! We need to remember that we aren't the ones calling for benefit cuts for the disabled or forced labour for the unemployed. It's the Tories! That illiberal cap on immigration? It's not us! Remember our policy on immigration at the election, far more liberal and fair than Labour could even dream of. Of course we didn't want to impose this cap.
We must remind people that the Tories aren't "liberals". They don't believe in a "small state". They believe in a "no state" free for all , where the religious and the rich can dictate terms to the poor and the secular. They don't like Europe, they don't like immigration, they don't like individual freedom to defy social norms. They wish to use the poor, not to help them. We have, very successfully, kept most of these tendencies under control by being part of the Coalition and we should celebrate that. Imagine what the Tories would've done without us. It's time for us to stand up and remind people that if they don't like what the Coalition is doing, there is another way: vote Liberal Democrat next time! Labour will say all the right things in Opposition but their past record shows how they will not do anything different to the Tories, they'll just package measures more nicely. And the Tories on their own will just do more of the same. Much more.
We need to stop hiding in the dark pretending the Coalition isn't happening. We need to stand up and remind people that things can be different. If you are an Orange Booker or a Social Lib, you know the Tories and Labour are both wrong. We must present our policies once more and show people we are the progressive, sensible choice for our country. And we must stop apologising and start shouting from the rooftops: Vote Liberal Democrat. Be proud of what we've achieved in the Coalition and remember that there is much more we could achieve if only people would give us the chance.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
In Defence Of Iain Duncan Smith? *shudder*
The anti-Coalition folks (I'm slowing moving back to supporting the Coalition mainly because of the partisan attacks against it) have got their panties in a twist again, this time over benefit cheats. Work and Pensions (the department headed by my least favourite Tory leader ever, Iain Duncan Smith) are planning to outsource finding benefit cheats to some credit firms. Let's face it, this can only be a good thing. Benefit cheats are inflating the cost of the welfare state and making the right-wing arguments against benefits more convincing. If we can root them out as thoroughly as possible, we are in a much more secure position to argue for a decent support structure for those in real need.
Sure I'm a little sceptical of the use of private enterprise to solve public sector problems, but I'm generally supportive of the concept of rooting out those who abuse our benefits system and give a bad name to those on benefits legitimately.
Is there anyone out there willing to argue that benefit cheats should be left to get on with what they are doing?
Of course, the left, generally see attacks on benefit cheats (i.e. liars) as an attack on benefits in general which is a little bit like saying arresting criminals is an attack on citizens in general. There are also those that state those who commit benefit fraud are desperate and worthy of our sympathy. Of course some of them will be! But that doesn't excuse their actions any more than those who steal to feed their drug habit.
The left have gotten grumpy today as they want more tax loopholes to be closed, quite rightly, to stop the very wealthy taking their profits from this country without paying their "fair share" in taxes. I wholeheartedly support this. But what they seem to be suggesting is we mustn't attack benefit cheats until we've attacked tax cheats.
I say: we should do both. Last time I checked (please correct me if I'm wrong) the Department of Work and Pensions does not generally deal with tax cheats. Isn't that the job of HM Revenue and Customs? You can't seriously attack the DWPs suggestions because they don't include something that another department looks after.
By all means criticise the means (i.e. using credit firms) and keep up the pressure on the Government to close the tax loopholes. But let's not criticise a policy that makes sense to us moderates who want a cost-effective benefit system that truly helps those who need it.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sure I'm a little sceptical of the use of private enterprise to solve public sector problems, but I'm generally supportive of the concept of rooting out those who abuse our benefits system and give a bad name to those on benefits legitimately.
Is there anyone out there willing to argue that benefit cheats should be left to get on with what they are doing?
Of course, the left, generally see attacks on benefit cheats (i.e. liars) as an attack on benefits in general which is a little bit like saying arresting criminals is an attack on citizens in general. There are also those that state those who commit benefit fraud are desperate and worthy of our sympathy. Of course some of them will be! But that doesn't excuse their actions any more than those who steal to feed their drug habit.
The left have gotten grumpy today as they want more tax loopholes to be closed, quite rightly, to stop the very wealthy taking their profits from this country without paying their "fair share" in taxes. I wholeheartedly support this. But what they seem to be suggesting is we mustn't attack benefit cheats until we've attacked tax cheats.
I say: we should do both. Last time I checked (please correct me if I'm wrong) the Department of Work and Pensions does not generally deal with tax cheats. Isn't that the job of HM Revenue and Customs? You can't seriously attack the DWPs suggestions because they don't include something that another department looks after.
By all means criticise the means (i.e. using credit firms) and keep up the pressure on the Government to close the tax loopholes. But let's not criticise a policy that makes sense to us moderates who want a cost-effective benefit system that truly helps those who need it.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Lib Dems Equal Marriage Proposal "Test Of Coalition"?
The Independent today reports on the proposals, to be debated at the upcoming Liberal Democrat conference, (as reported by me here) to make marriage equality party policy. They suggest that it might "highlight the divisions between the members of the coalition". Hmm.. is that really the case? I mean, we are DIFFERENT parties with DIFFERENT policies so how it will highlight, any further than now, that we are DIFFERENT I really don't know.
Is it me or are the media totally obsessed by fictional Coalition wobbles?
Anyway, I'm (as you can imagine) very much in favour of the proposals although I am concerned by this bit:
Anyway, fingers crossed that this proposal is adopted at conference and that we can make movement on the blood donation ban on MSMs as soon as possible.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Is it me or are the media totally obsessed by fictional Coalition wobbles?
Anyway, I'm (as you can imagine) very much in favour of the proposals although I am concerned by this bit:
a motion backed by the leadership will advocate civil partnerships being "converted" into full marriage. It would also allow couples to remain legally married when one partner undergoes a sex change.I'm not so keen on forcing conversion from civil partnerships to marriage (rather prefer an "optional upgrade" as carried out in New Hampshire before they too made it compulsory). The civil partnership deal has been done and we can't start upgrading people's relationships without their consent. Some heterosexuals want civil partnerships to avoid the "marriage" word. So I support making both gender neutral. But it's a minor quibble and something that can be ironed out at legislation stage when we get to that point (I feel it's still a long road to get there).
Anyway, fingers crossed that this proposal is adopted at conference and that we can make movement on the blood donation ban on MSMs as soon as possible.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Monday, 2 August 2010
LabourList Has A Sensible Article For Once
Though LabourList is in my reader, I've stopped paying attention to their articles due to some real idiocy in the past (the defence of civil partnerships was without any sort of balanced debate on the actual differences between civil partnerships and marriages, for example).
But today's article is one that needs to be read by everyone. Coalition politics might not be here "to stay" but it's certainly here in this Parliament right now. Want to stop the Coalition from doing something you don't like? Then it'd be best to follow the advice in the article below:
In the coalition politics era Labour should court, not vilify, the LibDems
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
But today's article is one that needs to be read by everyone. Coalition politics might not be here "to stay" but it's certainly here in this Parliament right now. Want to stop the Coalition from doing something you don't like? Then it'd be best to follow the advice in the article below:
In the coalition politics era Labour should court, not vilify, the LibDems
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Burka ban ruled out by immigration minister
Despite my misgivings about the Coalition, I have to say they keep saying a lot of nice things about civil liberties (except on the 28 day detention extension, which makes me quite angry). Damian Green has made clear the Government's stance on any proposed ban of the burqa:
Amen to that.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
“I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do,” he said. “We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.
“There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore.
Amen to that.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)