Labour's Dangerously Close To Screwing Up Their #EqualMarriage Policy

Marriage equality is, I think, first and foremost being brought in for those LGBT people who wish to get married. I know that sounds completely obvious but I think that, after the last week of debate, that needs to be clarified.

Let us also be clear that the current marriage equality proposals are flawed (as I stated in my response to them). We still don't get equal pensions rights, there remains some outstanding trans issues that have been completely by-passed and mixed-sex civil partnerships are completely off the agenda whilst leaving same-sex ones allowed. There is a lot Labour could be doing to argue the case for more, especially on the pension rights and trans rights fronts.

Instead of putting into action its much mentioned strength on LGBT issues, Labour has decided to join with the churches and attack the Government's plans. Instead of trying to fix their past mistakes (forcing trans people to divorce and denying civil partners equal pensions rights) they are tilting at windmills along with the Church of England. I pointed out yesterday how ridiculous the Church of England was being and Anya pointed it out even more clearly. Yet Yvette Cooper had this to say on Government plans:

"Ministers have made a real mess of this," said Cooper. "Why are they making it expressly illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same sex marriages, when even senior figures in both churches are questioning it?  

"The government should rethink this before they publish the legislation. Religious freedom should be protected in the legislation. But that goes both ways. Churches that want to hold same-sex marriages should be able to do so."

It is not the Government's plans that are a mess, it is the Church of England's response (and the Church in Wales shouldn't escape blame, their consultation request was to be treated exactly the same as the Church of England! They got their wish...) that is a mess. The Church of England even explained why what the Government had done was correct just the other day. Doesn't Labour know this? Are they so credulous that they listen to opponents of marriage equality (even on the civil level!) and believe what they have to say without even checking a few days old statement?

Rather than using this issue to attack the Government, helping to build an "omnishambles" impression, perhaps Labour might instead stand up for LGBT people and demand the necessary changes for us? When even LGBT Labour MPs like Ben Bradshaw would rather fawn over the religious than protect LGBT couples and families, then you know Labour has gone wrong somewhere.

Stop fighting ghosts and starting fighting for us! You are meant to be the opposition, not the pawns of anti-equality activists! Right now you are playing right into their hands and you're moving ever closer to undermining marriage equality itself.

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

On #equalmarriage I'm Totally Two-Faced

I've always been open about the fact that I unexpectedly fell into supporting marriage equality. Labour pissed me off. There I was happily being all radically queer in my early twenties and along they came and instituted civil partnerships. At the time I found the idea of marriage to be cold and dreary, yet Labour had some how managed to make formalised same sex relationships seem even more so! I wasn't going to put up with that.

And that was how I went from someone who couldn't even conceive of marriage as being part of his future to being someone who devoted way too much of 2010 to bugging people about getting the right to get married. I've obviously mellowed in my old age.

Sometimes I get so caught up in monitoring the arguments, spreading news and insulting Labour that I forget about what I really want. I was thinking about that on the way to work the other day. Personally, I don't really feel the need for Government affirmation of my relationship to my beloved Jim. I am, and this may surprise you Dear Constant Reader, an old romantic when it comes to the concept of marriage. To me it is more important that Jim and I believe we are married. Even though I'm certainly not Christian any longer and I've, with reluctance, left my pagan ways behind me, I'd love a sweet little ceremony somewhere with family and friends. But it doesn't need to be led by any official figure.

In fact, and this is where I get controversial, I find the concept of the Government and institutions giving married partners benefits above and beyond what single and unmarried couples get a bit disturbing. I want the Government out of relationships entirely. People should be free to associate, contract with and love whomever they wish (or to not do any of those things). Marriage should be something people and organisations sort out themselves for whatever purpose they want it for. They can be married in their own eyes, in the eyes of others or in the eyes of their God(s).

I've dealt with this before, and explained why I still fight for equal marriage. But I do always feel very two-faced. It helps that anti-equality activists often use arguments against romance to defend their policies. They often believe marriage between one man and one woman is a "social good" and this is why it alone deserves Government backing. This keeps me on the straight and narrow and reminds me that the fight for equal marriage is one that's pushes back against such an authoritarian understanding of Government. I do not want a Government that decides to reward one group over another. Government should be there only to arbitrate disputes, defend property and persons against attack and support those who really can't support themselves. It is not there to socially engineer a utopia and especially not one particular version of utopia.

I'm in too deep to hold myself aloft from what a younger version of me might have considered a petty skirmish. When marriage equality becomes reality I may well shed tears and I will most certainly, Jim willing, head down to our local registry office to formalise our relationship. It shall be a happy day, I have no doubt.

But I shan't stop there. I'll still be writing letters and bugging people for many years to come in the hopes of one day getting a little closer to the dream of a country where people get to love how they wish and no one feels the need to get involved in their relationship.

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

Ed Miliband Issues Strongest Support For Marriage Equality Yet

Oh, Dear Constant Reader, how far we've come from the days of the last Labour leadership election. If you remember I stalked the internet accosting unwary Labour leadership candidates with questions about marriage equality.

Ed Miliband, perhaps understandably, seemed most unprepared of the five candidates for these questions. His answers, such as to my question here or to Liberal Conspiracy here, were hesitant.

2. Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership? 

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy. 

But he quickly got the feel for it and, realising it was an issue that was just going to keep coming up, he soon declared his support for it (such as in this tweet to me).

He has now both confirmed that he supports full marriage equality (i.e. including allowing religious ceremonies) and suggesting that Labour MPs will be whipped at the vote on marriage equality.

With the Lib Dems and Labour offering strong support and the Tories split on the issue, marriage equality feels like it is getting closer. Credit where credit is due; good job Ed!
 
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality Should Be Above One's Own Ego

As you all know, far too well I suspect, I've been moaning about and then campaigning for equal marriage for a number of years. You can't really call me partisan on the issue as I've been criticised in the past by Liberal Democrats for being "unfair" on the party when it still hadn't adopted marriage equality as policy and still when Lynne Featherstone announced what I considered (and still consider) to be inadequate plans for equal civil marriage. And I have in the past attempted to convince myself that I should be conciliatory towards those who have not been in favour of equal marriage until recently.  As we all know that is very much still a work in progress.

As someone who spent a great deal of time getting marriage equality into the news agenda and on to the agenda of the Labour party, it is extremely hard to see people who previously had no interest in the issue suddenly championing it. And I don't mean people who just kept quiet, I'm talking about people I approached directly and asked to support it years ago, especially in the Labour party, and who told me it was not an important issue and not one they cared about. Now suddenly they are begging others to come out in support of it under their own campaigns (Labour for Equal Marriage, for example). It really pains me, and makes me incredibly sad to see this sort of bandwagon jumping on an issue that, in my opinion, is a matter of human rights.

And I've got to get over it. Yes it hurts that in the future people might look back and think Stonewall and Labour were behind the marriage equality struggle. It hurts that campaigners like Peter Tatchell, organisations like Pink News/C4EM and the fact it was more Stonewall's uselessness that pushed the agenda than anything else will probably be forgotten. But you know what? If we get equal marriage, even if it's just civil marriage for now, then we'll just have to swallow our pride and be happy.

The worst part is, this is what Labour activists always tell me to do. Shut up and just be happy and forget about the truth. *sigh* Playing politics is such an unrelentingly shit game for unrelentingly shit people.

I just have to start looking forward to my marriage and move on....

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

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.

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

Ben Bradshaw MP Plays The "Semantic" Card On Marriage Equality

Here's a quote from a Washington Post article from the 30/03/2012 regarding Britain's march towards marriage equality:

“This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships. He added: “We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage,’ and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the U.S., where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”

Today on Twitter he's defended these comments by stating that the fight for marriage equality is just semantics. With the interview he played into the hands of homophobes and then he made things worse when on Twitter he used one of their arguments! Marriage equality is not just semantics, but unfortunately Ben Bradshaw follows in the tradition of LGB Labour politicians of not really understanding the legislation they originally supported. Certainly he points out above his understanding that civil partnerships were a cheap ploy to give LGB folks rights without the need to fight with the religious over them. Compromising on freedom isn't really something I'm comfortable with but that's playing politics in a nutshell so he can't really complain when Cameron does it! 

But on the uncomfortable nitty-gritty effects of civil partnerships on transgendered individuals he doesn't seem to have a clue. Civil partnerships certainly haven't given us equal rights for all, just a semblance of them. I won't go into too much detail here as we've got this article to refer to.

And I was a bit surprised to see Mr Bradshaw use the semantics argument for, unless I'm much mistaken, wasn't it he who got rather upset when someone referred to his civil partner as his "boyfriend"? Such a semantic problem, but words don't matter to Mr Bradshaw.

He's even gone on to use that old chestnut of "But isn't *insert issue here*  more important?" that may be, but since when did one need to only fight one battle at a time? It's not hard and we're not playing some sort of game of who cares the most about LGBT rights. It's simply a lack of understanding on his part that concerns me. It was almost, but not quite, forgiveable in 2004. It's absolutely unforgivable now. 


Ben Bradshaw might not think marriage equality is important, but he really needs to get with the programme, stop feeding the bigots quotes and start chipping in with LGBT activists for whom this is just one of many important issues they are working on. But that may be too much to ask given his record, and he doesn't really want to upset any Bishops after all!

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

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

Tories and their Nasty Brigade #legalizegaymarriage

The Tories have a problem. They have made leaps and bounds in the last few years on the LGBT rights front. Here we have a Coalition consisting primarily of Tories liberalising the blood ban and supporting marriage equality. We need to give them some props for that. Excellent work. But fundamentally, at the very heart of the party in Parliament, there are still the hardcore right-wingers.

A coalition of evangelicals, Catholics and grumpy old people, these right-wingers have not gone away and their hatred of LGBT freedom is clear to see even when they are so desperate to hide it, as they did over the recent attempts to undermine religious civil partnerships.

All parties in this country consist of a wide coalition of groups, some with totally different ideas of what direction the party should go in. But it's only in the Tories that the loony fringe common to all parties seems to have really maintained it's grip in Parliament. That's because until the late nineties, that fringe WAS the Tory party.

The latest shenanigans, led by David Burrowes, to rebel against the civil marriage equality legislation which is on the cards show that whilst this fringe doesn't have the power to defeat this legislation (thanks to the liberal Tories, the Lib Dems and the saner members of the Labour party giving it a good chance of success) they still have the power to give voice to the homophobia that is common among certain classes of people.

And that's why I could never, ever bring myself to vote for the Tories. They cannot pretend this fringe doesn't represent a sizeable component of their supporters. They may have tamed their crazy urges, but it'll only take a bad election defeat of the liberal leadership under Cameron for them to regain command again. 

We must be sure to keep pressing the reasonable members of Parliament to support marriage equality (both civil and religious) to ensure they take the matter seriously enough to keep it on course. The risk of a derailment is small but these guys aren't going to miss the vote and we need to make sure our side don't either!

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

Misunderstanding Labour's Position On Marriage Equality

Last night there was a lot of confusion over Labour's position on marriage equality caused by a recent article by Peter Tatchell entitled "Why has Labour failed to vote for marriage equality?" 


This caused many on Twitter to assume Labour had voted against marriage equality. Now, as much as I dislike Labour and fear their conservative instincts on many issues, I can't see how anyone could imagine a situation where they would vote against such an obviously progressive measure. 


Of course they've been against marriage equality in the very recent past. Gordon Brown answered a question on this here:

In response to Downing St online petitions to introduce same-sex marriage, it was stated that the "government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage", because it has to "balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion". In what ways does same-sex marriage affect freedom of speech and religion? Andrew Archer

"At the moment there’s a distinction drawn between civil and religious unions, and when civil partnerships were being introduced they took the same form as a civil union which a heterosexual couple would have. We later made it illegal to discriminate on partnership status – so it is illegal to treat someone in a civil partnership different to a married person. That makes no practical difference in terms of rights and responsibilities, but does recognise that religious groups have the right to a certain degree of self-organisation on questions that are theologically important to them, including on the question of religiously-sanctioned marriage. So the provision of ‘marriage’ as opposed to the provision of same-sex or heterosexual civil unions, is intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom."

And Chris Bryant made his opinions on this very plain during the civil partnership debates: 

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.

So there is a reason to be cautious over their approach but since the rather slow progress we made with Labour during the leadership elections last year it's become far more common to hear Labour politicians supporting marriage equality (well civil marriage at least). At last night's Stonewall fringe event at the Labour conference, Yvette Cooper also reiterated her support for marriage equality.

Given how undemocratic Labour's internal workings are, this is probably as close to policy as we're likely to get this side of an election manifesto. And we should be pleased Labour has managed to make this progress.

So no... Labour no longer vote against marriage equality. My only concern is remarks such as Cooper made last night suggesting she'd always fought for marriage equality, a statement I've yet to see backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It's great you're supporting it now, but please do not attempt to rewrite history just to cover-up Labour's complete lack of leadership on this subject.

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

On Marriage Equality, Labour Is Still Following Rather Than Leading

After failing to even discuss marriage equality during their 13 years of power (and then playing catch up during last year's summer of marriage equality movement), Labour still don't appear to have learnt their lesson. 


Yvette Cooper says "“We have called for and support same-sex marriage and we welcome this shift in government policy." 


Hmm... when has Labour (as a party) called for it Yvette? It's still not even party policy. You may support the Government's recent announcement but did you really call for it?  


Yvette Cooper's, and thus I assume Labour's, issue with the announcement is not the fundamental flaws. Instead they just moan about how unreliable the Government is. Given the rather rapid progress we've made on issues such as LGBT asylum seekers and relaxing the blood donation ban under the Coalition, what nerve she has to cast doubt on this Government's commitment. 


My issue has never been the Governments commitment but instead with just what it is committed to. Labour have once again failed to grasp the opportunity to wound (or woe) the LGBT rights supporters in the Coalition by pointing out the flaws and declaring their support for a more sensible expansive reform of marriage law. 


Instead they just appear to be political point-scoring. And not even managing that particularly well. Who is advising Yvette Cooper on LGBT issues? Labour doesn't lead on LGBT issues any more, nor do they even seek to compare themselves to more "progressive" parties such as the Lib Dems or the Greens but instead they ape whatever half-baked compromise the Coalition proposes! 


Come on Labour. Even LGBT Labour's press release is a damp squib. Where's your vision? Your leadership? Are you really just going to moan from the sidelines as always? 


I've been deeply disappointed with Labour's LGBT record ever since they settled for civil partnerships and they aren't doing anything to make me feel confident they would do any better if we gave them another chance.


Thankfully we have our own champions leading on this, our ever present defender Peter Tatchell. At least he sees the real issues. 


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

Labour Has A Solution For Folkestone's Economic Woes: Make Charities Pay!

The Folkestone Labour party asks "Do charities cause poverty and unemployment?".

Before we jerk those knees (but do keep them on standby) there is a real issue at the centre of the argument: Folkestone's empty shops and the competition our large number of charity shops present to local businesses. Both are serious matters of concern to every resident.

The problem: the charity shops don't need to pay, and I quote, "Taxes, Insurance, Wage Costs, interest rates and Payroll Tax." which (as well as not necessarily needing to pay even for the goods they sell) makes them formidable competition to small businesses such as second-hand bookshops.

Of course there are ways to help the businesses that exist already and to encourage new ones to take over the empty shops and office spaces in our town centre. Lower the taxes and reduce the business rates. If the business rates are lowered just in our area, isn't that likely to encourage local business creation and movement of small businesses from other parts of Kent to Shepway? That way no one is being forced to do something by the local/national Government, but they are getting an incentive to do business here. Of course it'd involve some budgetary changes in the council but then again the gains might be worth it.

But that's not Labour's approach. Instead they would force, in Folkestone or throughout Shepway, all these charity shops to take on at least two employees. So instead of the willing volunteers (who have given up their time through a passion for fund-raising and helping the community) they currently get helping them, they'd need to give themselves the same shackles as currently faced by the small-businesses Labour claim to want to protect (i.e. wage costs, payroll taxes etc.). That's like seeing one child with a sweet and one without and confiscating the sweet as the one without felt sad! It's petty and authoritarian and it's a plan designed to punish the goodness in people.

And the idea that, aside from the central issue of the new Oxfam bookshop, most of the charities earnings go to fund head offices, overseas work and staff costs is a little heartless. Oh there is some truth there, sadly charities have become more and more like businesses (so how treating them LIKE businesses helps I don't know). But to say charity shops like the one in my street (the Rhodes Minnis Cat Sanctuary shop, who Labour probably thinks puts the cat in "fat cat")  or the British Heart Foundation shop, or the Cancer Research Store don't benefit local people and simply create poverty is to cast them in an unfair light. To say  no one in Folkestone benefits from the work of the YMCA, British Heart Foundation, or Cancer Research is a cruel lie.

Let's help businesses in ways they'll find useful, not punish charities just to create some sort of fake "level playing field". Next we'll need to ban local eBayers or boot fairs for undercutting the second-hand book and furniture shops! That way madness lies.

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

Chris Bryant's Fighting The Wrong Fight Again

Chris Bryant returned to one if his favourite topics (last picked up by me here); religious readings and music in civil marriages.

His support for heterosexual liberty would be endearing if it wasn't for his past acceptance of the separate but equal civil partnerships:

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct. Source

He seems to be offering conflicting messages, on the one part pointing out civil partnerships are not the same as marriage (and also now belatedly, and once he was out of a position to be influential in the matter, calling for marriage equality) but on the other suggesting civil partnerships give additional rights to LGBT folk which is unfair on heterosexuals and this needs to be changed. Indeed, I agree. It's just sad Chris Bryant has taken this long to realise.

Perhaps he doesn't know, it's always possible, but the Government is about to begin a consultation on opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and marriage to same sex couples. Perhaps he might add his suggestions to this consultation. Perhaps he might fight for some legislation to amend the pertinent marriage acts to allow same sex couples to marry at which point he would have a perfect opportunity to also amend marriage law to allow religious texts and readings.

Two birds. One stone. Sadly I think Bryant, as I said in this post, isn't really interested in marriage equality and just gives lip service to it. His obsession with, again, creating a "separate peace" on this issue (i.e. solving just a small facet of the problems of our currently discriminatory partnership rights system, which he helped create and as quoted above approved of), rather than a complete overhaul to create equality for heterosexuals and LGBT people, is indicative of his lack of vision or leadership.

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

No Apologies: LGBT rights and UK Politics Rantathon

I often wonder if the LGBT community isn't it's own worst enemy. We allow all sorts of morons to speak on our behalf on a national level, who really don't hold our interests at heart. Stonewall is, of course, one such example but I think they've pulled their head in a little sheepishly after last years stupidity and are keeping a lower profile politically. Sadly some individuals and organisations are still working against the community at large's interests in pursuit of their own rather narrow agendas.

Step forward Iain Dale. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I try to have as little to do with this man as possible, to the point of reminding people to, please God, not retweet his stuff into my timeline. I'm sure he's a nice enough fellow but I've not seen any evidence of that and thus have been perfectly happy to ignore his writings and tweets. But after it appeared in my timeline a few times yesterday I gave in and read an interview So So Gay did with him.

How, then, is the Coalition performing – particularly on gay rights? Before the election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made a number of pledges to gay people about, for example, considering marriage equality and deleting criminal records for homosexual ‘offences’. A question about marriage equality draws a quick response. ‘To me, a civil partnership is a marriage in all but name. If the Government wants to call it marriage, fine – but I can’t understand why people get so hung up about it.’

Yes. That old chestnut. He even called me out on it on Twitter asking me what the differences were, and suggesting it was all "semantics". Yes, Mr Dale, it's only semantics when you have your marriage dissolved because you change your gender. Doesn't affect anyone really does it? What an appalling thing to say. I thought I'd let that pass without further comment (beyond sending him a link to the relevant post on this blog), he's of little interest or importance in the grand scheme of things after all.. and then So So Gay printed a little Coalition debate piece today.

Tom Burke, chair of LGBT Labour said:

We are also calling for marriage equality for same sex couples. Civil partnerships were a significant step forward in the legal rights of lesbian and gay people. The time has come to build on this and to give same sex couples the right to get married on a comparable basis as heterosexual couples. It would also ensure that married trans people can transition to their new gender without having to divorce. The government has kicked the issues into the long grass, whereas we think it’s time for action.

A couple of points there:

1) the article is written to suggest marriage equality is Labour policy, it's not. It's just LGBTLabour's only very recently (last year) adopted policy!

2) "The time has come" totally gets my back up. It suggests there is no right to equality. It's all about getting what we can, when we can, at the discretion of others. It's what I was hearing from Labour for 5 years "Now isn't the time to be fighting for marriage equality". How fucking insulting is that? I don't often swear but I think the situation calls for it.

3) "The government has kicked the issues into the long grass, whereas we think it’s time for action." - This issue wasn't even on the Government agenda, LGBT Labour's agenda or anyone else's agenda in the House of Commons this time last year. It was only through the HARD WORK of activists on the ground during the Labour leadership elections and other opportunities, and through wide publicity given by Pink News to the Stonewall troubles and other marriage equality stories that we have even got them to give us a consultation. They aren't kicking it into the long grass and, in fact, equality supporters IN the Government are desperately pulling the issue out of the long grass (too slowly for my liking I admit) from where it had been despatched by New Labour in 2004.

And then it gets worse:

The only reason why gay rights would take a back seat in this Tory-led government is if Cameron and Clegg allowed it to; it would be their choice to let equality slip. Traditionally the Liberal Democrats have been very supportive of LGBT rights, but I know from former Lib Dem members who have joined the Labour party how disillusioned they are with Nick Clegg and with the fact that the Lib Dems in Parliament are supporting Tory policies, and working with people like Theresa May who voted against gay adoption in 2008 and opposed the repeal of Section 28.

This is total utter bollocks. An attempt to link the Coalition's troubles with trust (over tuition fees etc.) to the Coalition's record on LGBT rights is a disgustingly partisan attack. There is no excuse. Can you see now why I despise Labour's constant harping on about being the LGBT community's best friend so much? They use us, for political point scoring and nothing more.

The Coalition have, with issues on each move I agree, stopped deporting gay asylum seekers, partially lifted the gay blood ban, begun a consultation on marriage equality and removed the convictions of men for "sexual crimes" that are no longer crimes. Each one of those has not been done perfectly. But then again Labour's record was exactly the same so attempting to point score is pointless. We must continue to press for perfection.  For a new blood donation policy that is about sexual health rather than sexuality. For more oversight on what is happening to LGBT asylum seekers, for a faster move towards marriage equality and for a total deletion of spent criminal convictions for things that are no longer illegal. But let's not pretend the Coalition hasn't already done a lot for LGBT people in a very short amount of time. I remain hopeful that with the sensible support of some in Labour this can continue.

It's time the LGBT community started truly speaking up rather then letting these partisan, divisive and out of touch politicians speak for them. I cry out for the day we get a decent LGBT rights organisation working for our rights. And even more for the day it's no longer needed.

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

So... Folkestone Labour; What Is The Alternative?

A couple of weeks ago I received a piece of paper from the Folkestone Labour Party (and there I was thinking they were some sort of mythical beast...).

Shall we take a look?

Despite: rising food and fuel prices, cuts in wages and benefits and despite escalating unemployment...

What a way to start, going straight for the apocalyptic angle...

"Tory Shepway Council increases rents by a whopping 6.47%"

Hmm... that does sound bad, I wonder why this is and what Labour proposes to do about it...

"In the words of former Lib Dem now Tory Councillor Sue Wallace "I cannot see there is going to be a problem with people finding the money to pay this extra

Give the Tories the problem. Throw them out on the 5th May

Labour is Folkestone's Alternative Vote

Join our fight against the increase
Sign up to Folkestone Labour Party"

So... erm... what is the alternative? What's the plan? Could it be Folkestone Labour Party haven't got that far yet? Opposition is great. But opposition without an alternative is just plain tilting at windmills.

The next side is much the same. Repeating figures and issues without offering a "real alternative" despite their claims.

I want to ask again: what is Labour's alternative? When will they tell us? Is this Labour's cunning plan to not to repeat the Lib Dems tuition fees mistake by not promising us anything at all??

Before I put my cross in a box I'd like to know what exactly the party has planned for Shepway. Sweet nothing?

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

Marriage Equality: Coming To A Town Near You Soon

Well maybe not soon... but I'm beginning to feel the ball is really rolling now. In England and Wales, we have even the Home Secretary herself echoing her Equality Minister's words in a speech at the weekend at a Stonewall event *spit*:

Civil Partnership legislation, for example, marked a great advance for gay rights in this country.

And we will go further – we will implement section 202 of the Equality Act which will remove the ban on civil partnership registrations being held on religious premises.

No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration, but for those who wish to do so this is an important step forward, not just for LGB rights but also for religious freedom. Let’s not forget that this amendment was brought forward in response to religious groups such as the Quakers and Liberal Jews wanting to celebrate civil partnerships.

Having listened to stakeholders it is clear from many that there is also a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships and we will consult further on how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in this area.

Given we had former Labour ministers just last summer telling us there was no call for marriage equality, having the Coalition Government admit there is some (and in doing so on several occasions even at the Ministerial level) we are getting somewhere. Now we must seek to ensure the consultation *groan* is done as quickly as possible and comes out favourably. This weekend I shall begin annoying these key stakeholders (that's coded speak for unelected bodies of self important so and so's [shorthand: Stonewall]) to ensure there's no doublespeak like some managed at the civil partnerships consultation.

And in Scottish news (hurrah, we're getting Scottish news... hopefully the Holyrood elections will bring much more) the opening salvo for the final battle for marriage equality has been made by the ECHR I shall be ensuring I annoy my Scottish friends into annoying their representatives even more than I have in the past. There's been some good feedback and some bad. The SNP and Tory MSPs seemed the least likely (quelle surprise, nationalists and conservatives not liking equality) to have a positive response in replies I saw to letters from their constituents on the subject last year. Let's hope for better this time round.

Now, who is brave enough to start the fight in Northern Ireland?

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

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

Alright Labour, If You Insist On Our Help

Petulant children. That's what Labour call those of us who turned our noses up at the idea of helping THEM develop THEIR party's new policies.

Well, if they are so desperate to get our input (perhaps they are really struggling for inspiration?) who am I to deny them? So here is a list of my suggestions for some radically new policies for the Labour party.

1) No more torture.

A real headline grabber this one. It's going to be a hard sell within the Labour party, if their last term in Government is anything to go by, but I think this might be a really positive step forward. It's pretty simple really: the Labour party just needs to promise (and keep said promise, I know don't follow Nick Clegg's example on this one!) NOT to torture anyone or aid in the torture of anyone.

Some, in the Labour party, will say this is impossible. That something so radical can be barely be contemplated. But I really think NOT torturing people might work. Let's just give it a go, see how it works out? Go on. Try something new!

2) No more killing innocent civilians just because your weirdo Christian fundamentalist friend in the USA thinks it's a good idea.

War is Hell. We all know that, and I think it's probably near impossible NOT to kill innocents (i.e. civilians) during wartime operations. Now Labour here's where things get complicated so let me spell it out to you:

JUST BECAUSE CIVILIANS OFTEN GET KILLED IN WARS, THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE KILLING CIVILIANS IN WARS

Indeed the fact they often get caught up in the crossfire means that going to war needs to be a decision made for the right reasons, at the right time and in the right way. Getting it wrong and saying sorry doesn't quite cut it. Killing people with real lives, real families, real hopes, and real dreams for the wrong reason isn't something you just get to say "oops" about. So the new policy would be "No more unjust wars". This is a hard one, and perhaps you might want to get rid of some of the people in your party who still have blood on their hands. It really puts those of us with a conscience off dealing with you at all, knowing you've got killers in your midst.

3) Do not think that your drinking buddies represent entire groups of people

When your drunken friend, who happens to fall in love with members of their own sex, leans across the bar and slurs "You know, not all lesbians want marriage. I think you should set up some sort of unequal civil union instead." don't take this as representative of the entire LGBT community. Perhaps ask around (and not just your friends like David Miliband did), or (crazy idea here) consult your fundamental party values and ask the question "Is this right?". What are fundamental party values, I hear the Blairites cry. *sigh* I'll see you after the lesson.

4) Balance the books

Yes, I know it's fun to hide balances here, there and anywhere and sell off parts of public property to private business but pretend you haven't. BUT trust me this sort of fun always comes back to bite you in the bum. Perhaps work out how much money is coming in, and work out how much money is going out. Then you need to balance those amounts. Yes, it's elementary economics and perhaps an oversimplification of how possible (or desirable) that is at a national level. But promising to keep it in mind this time might go some way to rebuilding trust with the people paying the bills (i.e. the electorate).

5) Don't treat your citizens like criminals.

Relax. Calm down. Breath. Terrorism is not new. It's not something that's going to stop. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and we shouldn't try to stop it from happening but perhaps you might want to start balancing freedom and security a bit more sensibly. When the police start stopping people in the street who are simply taking photos, you know you've got that balance wrong. And let's be honest... Labour has that balance really wrong (also see torture and murder, these things are linked). Remember: the public are not here to do your bidding. Your there to do the public's bidding.

Just a few little tips to start you off. Finding a heart or soul may also be of benefit. Any questions please feel free to ask someone who thinks you might actually do even one of the above.

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

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

Phil Woolas: Really Labour? Really??

When Harriet Harman said "It is not part of Labour politics to try to win elections by saying things that are not true." regarding the decision of an election court to overturn the Oldham East and Saddleworth election, I thought it wasn't enough. I made my feelings known that I felt her, and other senior Labour figures, complete disregard for the racial hatred stirring content of the leaflets was unacceptable.

Now I know why she tempered her words, and I feel somewhat sympathetic to her plight. She tempered her words because even what she did say (that Phil Woolas' lying was bad enough to make him person non grata in the Labour party) was controversial enough with her Parliamentary colleagues. They have attacked her for abandoning a "colleague" so "quickly" (!).

To us Liberal Democrats, from our partisan position, this is laughable. But it's understandable that the Labour party stuck by Phil Woolas during the court procedures. However, once he was found guilty, they made the right decision to disown him.

The Labour MPs belief that it's unacceptable to have a court overturn an election result seems silly given it was based on a law passed by Parliament. This wasn't a court creating a new law or interpreting the law in a new and different way. This was a court just going by the book.

The other part of their argument ("it ain't over until it's over") is that Phil Woolas is still planning to appeal the decision and that the Labour party should stick by him until all possible avenues of appeal are explored. This would be fine if it wasn't for the content of the leaflets he issued during the May campaign. They can read them for themselves. By defending Phil Woolas they are, in part, defending these leaflets. They must realise this.

I saw many Labour activists getting angry with their MPs last night, I saw more than a few former Lib Dem voters saying things like "Thanks Labour MPs for reminding me that I shouldn't vote for your party ever again" and I saw a lot of left wingers wondering how MPs could get so passionate about defending a discredited party member when they don't seem quite so passionate about fighting "the cuts".

Harriet Harman called this correctly and the Labour MPs have called it very, very wrongly indeed. With letters like this, they are in danger of annoying their base, their new post-Coalition voters and just about everyone else.

I just hope the angry Labour membership are able to convince them to change their mind before they get any deeper into a pit of burning stupidity.

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

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