Why I'll Probably Vote Lib Dem And You Probably Should Too

When this election was called I thought getting rid of the Tories was secondary to trying to get rid of Brexiters.

Of course this election turned out to be about everything BUT Brexit. I'm still rabidly pro-EU. I'm not giving up on the dream but I think the fight for Remain is now totally over. The fight for Return will have to start but it can't exactly do that for a while.

The Tories have shown themselves to be even more useless than I'd given them credit for. Since May took over as Prime Minister I've struggled to understand some of her actions. Her failure to actively build bridges with Remains and picking a judicial fight over Article 50 rather than just get it through the Commons first time are top among the pre-election "blunders". These pale in comparison to the errors that May has made since calling the election.

She can't help but say hypocritical things like how she was too busy thinking about Brexit to attend a debate (well you called the election during the negotiations Prime Minister!) or complain about Labour being all soundbites and no substance (this needs little explanation!). Her manifesto policies were not just poorly conceived and rather empty, they were also pretty bleak. There was no vision there, none of the promise that Brexit supposedly will bring. It was all charges and pain.

Despite being extremely cool towards Corbyn before (his stances on the Falklands War and the IRA remain deep concerns to me), he seems like a professional whilst May appears dangerously inept.

At this point I'm more concerned about the prospect of a May return than a Corbyn premiership.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems, the only party I've ever voted for at general elections, have not taken off. The Brexit focus turned out to be the wrong strategy. They remain tarnished by coalition and caught off guard in what is turning out to be a possible national re-alignment politically. But right now the Lib Dems are the most sensible of the three main national parties (though some of those "Which Party Should You Support?" websites have me down as SNP!!). Their manifesto is sensible and costed. Tim Farron is a bit wet but he's not crazy and he's not utterly inept. At this point that's the best we can hope for.

You'd think as a near life-long Lib Dem member, a past paper candidate, and a liberal to my core, the decision to vote Lib Dem should be straightforward based on what I've laid out above. However, here in Dover, Yougov have got the seat down as leaning Labour. A chance to help punish the self-obsessed Tories who've put themselves before our national interest is calling out to me. I'm fighting it, but I don't think I'll know how I'll vote until I get to the polling booth.

And if you think that's crazy just take a look at this on the Yougov projections. If accurate (take a very large pinch of salt!) it suggests we could see massive seat changes across the country unlike anything seen for many years. I still think the Tories will win handsomely. But you never know!

A Broadening And A Narrowing Of My Political Views

It is time to grow up. I've happily played around with self-interested third party politics for so long, happily being all virtuous, and it is time to stop. Reality, Trump and May for example, show us that we cannot afford to be virtuous and sometimes we do need to hold our noses when voting to ensure that we don't get awful when we could get mediocre.

I rejoined the Lib Dems this month. I put Tim Farron's views on my sexuality ahead of all the other things the Lib Dems stand for (European unity now foremost among them). But didn't I just say I need to put third party politics behind me? Well yes, but only where I put that vote ahead of voting for a "least worst option". At the moment, with May and Corbyn at the head of the two largest parties, the Lib Dems are that "least worst option". Corbyn is just as dangerous as May. If a better Labour leader arrives, and the local Labour candidate at that time wasn't a moron, then I'd vote Labour here in Dover as they stand the best chance of unseating our sitting MP (Tory).

Meanwhile... social justice warriors continue their descent in to insanity. Owen Jones isn't the only one calling for gay men and lesbians to consider changing their sexual preferences (and even orientation). I appreciate the below video will not be tolerable to many but... Oh well...


And the "cultural libertarians" on the right have morphed into the alt-right and Trump supporters. Hardly any have been immune to this conversion.

I'm trying to avoid living in an echo chamber (see the video above, for instance, a radical feminist with, in my political community at least, controversial views) and am broadening who I listen to, read and think about. But at the same time, I'm tired of arguing on a broad scale with people on allsorts of issues which don't affect me. So consider this my declaration that I'm going to be speaking up more for "my" pet issues and less on issues that affect others. Of course, I've mostly always done that on this blog. But more generally that's what I'm going to try to keep to.

I'll vote to help protect the majority. And I'll campaign to help protect the things and people I care about personally. Deal?

So I've Read Lynne Featherstone's "#EqualEverAfter"...

It has been a couple of years since the end of the same-sex marriage debates and it is about time we got some insider knowledge of how same-sex marriage went from fringe issue (fringe even within the LGBT community, trust me... I was there!) to actual legislation.

And Lynne Featherstone was a central figure within that, there is not denying it. Now there's been some unkind mocking, including from me, of the way the book has been portrayed as being all about how Featherstone was the one and only person behind same-sex marriage becoming law. But let's get this out of the way from the start: even without reading what is in this book we all know she played an immensely important part in getting same-sex marriage on to the agenda and through Parliament. She justly deserves respect and appreciation for that.

So... the book. There are no massive revelations in it for any of us who followed the news and social media updates at the time. I don't think there's any surprise in how Theresa May gave Featherstone's proposals her blessing, how David Cameron got in the way of opposite-sex civil partnerships or how the churches and fellow travellers reacted.

Nor should any of us be surprised that Chris Bryant, Labour MP, "battled ferociously" against the idea at first and "didn't see the point". Nor how Ben Summerskill was "very dismissive" until the hard part was over when he was "literally lording it and loving it".

Basically if you read Pink News, or even just this humble blog!, you'd probably be well aware of all this stuff and more.

This book is not really a book about same-sex marriage, it is a book about how Lynne Featherstone got us same-sex marriage. It is a memoir and, if anything, merely one source for the yet-to-be written full history of the fight for equal marriage (also yet to be finished!).

Is it worth buying? Probably not. It's written in a very easy to read conversational style, broken down into themes rather than strictly chronological and perfect for a commuting read. But... it just didn't tell me anything important than what I knew already.

The one interesting little detail I saw was mention of Ed Fordham attempting to turn Tim Farron on the issue... using scripture! Ugh. I'm glad I'm out of that party now.

Homosexuality Is Not A Sin

If I was a gay/bi teenage liberal just coming to terms with my sexuality, reading some of the stuff posted by defenders of Tim Farron would probably be enough to send me scuttling back in to the closet.

So to them I want to be very, very clear: homosexuality is not a sin. It is a not a "condition", let alone one that requires other's compassion. It is not a "second-best" option. It is not inferior. The quality of love between two men (I can't speak for others but I'm sure it is also the same between two women) is not one iota less than that between a man and a woman.

I've seen Lib Dems suggest a Christian's distaste to homosexuality to be akin to most people's distaste for heroin users. I.e. "I believe in the right of someone to inject themselves with heroin but I think it is bad for them and I'd argue that they shouldn't". Well isn't that a beautiful message to send out to young gay and bi people? "You have the right to do what you do, but it's a sin!"

My love for my other half is NOT equivalent in anyway to the love a heroin user has for a needle. And I will not sit silently by whilst that sort of message is sent out to vulnerable young people.

Now Tim Farron hasn't said the above, thankfully, so I'm only directing about 10% of my anger at him for his failure to be clearer. I am disturbed though by those defending the concept of believing homosexuality is a sin.

Some have said "We're liberals, we should support people holding beliefs we find objectionable as long as they harm no one else". Totally agree. But I wouldn't want someone who thinks Africans are an inferior race leading a party I was a member of, regardless of the fact he supports their equality 100% in his public life.

A disturbing number of people, both heterosexual and other, seem to accept the idea that homosexuality "isn't ideal". They very much support our rights and freedoms. But in their heart of hearts they really do not accept us.

My message to LGBT young people is this... THERE IS NOTHING SINFUL ABOUT LOVING SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER. Nothing. Not one thing. Our love is not inferior to anybody else's . We must never forget that.

Further reading.

Bye Bye Lib Dems

11 years have come and gone so quickly. Yet those happy days supporting Peter Carroll for Folkestone and Hythe and getting excited about a visit from Charles Kennedy seem like a lifetime ago. 

My membership came up for renewal a couple of weeks back. I put off renewing until after payday for entirely practical reasons. I had been on a bit of a "Lib Dem high" of late with the Lib Dem fightback rhetoric and the prospect of a new leader. I even decided to defend my choice for leader, Tim Farron, from some attacks on his record on same-sex marriage.  

How quickly my mood can change. I must be very fickle. But in the wake of his interview with Cathy Newman on Channel 4, I can no longer force myself to give Tim Farron the benefit of the doubt. I'd done that after serious concerns before and this... this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

If someone asked me "Do you think practicing Christianity is stupid?", I'd say no. So I'm not really sure I share others nuanced views of Farron's inability to answer a similar question about homosexuality and sin. I get the theological arguments. I get that "it's complicated" probably is a good answer for a short interview and expressing his views might take forever. But really, ultimately, it is a yes or no question. The fact he couldn't answer broke my liberal heart. How different things are under Farron than under Clegg... 

But far worse than his interview has been watching Lib Dems engage in theological and philosophical debates over homosexuality, stretching partisan apologia into the realms of Christian apologists. This just isn't the party I thought it was. I got it wrong, I'm sure the party is the same as ever. 

As some have said "Well you didn't mind Kennedy?". I didn't. But I thought the way Clegg dealt with religion and sexuality was a breath of fresh air. I've been spoilt and obviously ruined. 

I'd say one of my personal fundamental red lines is "homosexuality is not a sin". I cannot follow a man who believes otherwise or refuses to take a stand on that stance. Thus I won't be renewing my lapsed membership. I hope, for this country's sake, the Lib Dems prosper and flourish under Tim Farron's leadership. I see no other party even close to matching my political beliefs. But I won't be there to prosper along side you. 

Tim Farron And Same-Sex Marriage

If I had been an MP in the last Parliament (stop thanking deities I wasn't back there!) I'd have had many second thoughts about voting for the same-sex marriage bill. I went over my reasons for that repeatedly during the debates but they are summed up here.

I state that as a way of saying I'm open-minded (a rare state for me, as you well know Dear Constant Reader) about those who may have had similar concerns about a very flawed bill and even those who abstained (but I'm far less open-minded about those who voted against it as it was clearly a step in the right direction and not worthy of total rejection!). Cheerleaders who hold the same-sex marriage act up as some amazing piece of progressive legislation will not get much of a warm reception from me.

Tim Farron, in the midst of a Lib Dem leadership campaign, has come under fire from his opponent Norman Lamb on the issue of same-sex marriage. I've seen some less well-informed Tweeple (especially non-LDs) claiming Tim Farron was against same-sex marriage. That is absolutely not true.

Farron voted for the same-sex marriage bill in its early stages. He abstained from voting during it's Third Reading. He states this was because of his concerns over protections for some religious communities and conscientious objectors.

I've expressed a great deal of concern regarding Farron's actions regarding some issues around religion in the past. So I'm no Tim Farron fanboy (though, for full disclosure, I am currently planning to vote for him). But, to give him his due, he has been unfailingly consistent in framing his stances on very clear individual liberty grounds. Some of his positions have made me feel uncomfortable but, I admit, have often made me consider whether I'm holding a position from the point of view of consistency or because of some prejudice I may have. And whenever I've engaged with him he has been willing to listen, to respond politely and to appear to consider other points of view.

Farron has made it clear he regrets that his abstention may be taken as a lack of support for same-sex marriage in principle and that he very much supports it and will defend it should it come under attack from the new Tory Government. We can't really ask for more than that now can we?

Well he could champion some of my concerns with regards to the act, of course... ;)

Are We About To See A Lib Dem Wobble On #EqualMarriage?

Tomorrow is the 2nd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Until today we had only one major concern from the Lib Dem contingent of MPs with regards to voting against the bill and that was Gordon Birtwistle.

Unfortunately today John Pugh has also come out against it, with some statist arguments that he believes to be "liberal" (talk about "cultural communism", having the Government regulate relationships only for its own benefit), and it has raised my concerns as to whether we might see an even larger number vote against.

If we look to Edward Leigh's amendment vote last week as a guide to who we should keep an eye out for in tomorrow's vote we get:

Alan Beith	Berwick-upon-Tweed	LDem	aye
Gordon Birtwistle	Burnley	LDem	aye
John Hemming	Birmingham, Yardley	LDem	aye
Simon Hughes	Bermondsey and Old Southwark	LDem	aye
Charles Kennedy	Ross, Skye and Lochaber	LDem	aye
Greg Mulholland	Leeds North West	LDem	aye
John Pugh	Southport	LDem	aye

Beith, Hemming, Kennedy and Mulholland are not currently shown on the C4EM support page which is quite worrying. Simon Hughes was relatively supportive when he responded to my Yoosk question two years ago but I've heard whispers he is wavering. To add to this other formerly supportive MPs are showing signs of wavering such as Tim Farron (who lost my confidence a while ago)

Tim Farron, Lib Dem President, says he's still deciding how to vote tomorrow over gay marriage.
— Arif Ansari (@ArifBBC) February 4, 2013

Very concerning to see Lib Dem MPs voting against party policy in a free vote (i.e. not whipped like tuition fees) and equally concerning to see that we might actually get a higher percentage against than Labour in a worst case (but possible) scenario.

I hope to be proven wrong.

Reasons The Ex-Gay Bus Ads Were Stupid And Why They Shouldn't Be Banned

Yesterday a rather impressive Twitter storm raged after it was discovered Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust were going to mount a counter bus ad campaign to Stonewall's famous "Some people are gay. Get over it" ads. These have recently reappeared on buses thanks to Stonewall's new marriage equality campaign.

If they were aiming for massive exposure, they were successful even if the ads have now been refused by Transport for London thanks to Boris Johnson's (record time) intervention last night. But if they were aiming to enlighten the public, I feel they may have really missed an opportunity (thankfully for us LGBT rights enthusiasts!). So here's a few points on what is wrong with the advert (leaving out that ridiculous exclamation mark after Not Gay which is wrong on far too many levels).

1) The phrasing. "Ex-gay" and "Post-gay" are not really terms in common circulation. People like me (and probably you) know about ex-gays because of the harrowing stories we hear from organisations like Truth Wins Out. Christian fundamentalists know about ex-gays because they are good friends! Post-gay is a bit more confusing, as to me that means someone looking to a time when sexuality doesn't really matter. I don't think that was the intention of the advert, but I could be wrong! I really think this advert is far more likely to confuse than to enlighten it's target audience. On that front alone it was a bit of an own goal anyway.
2) The concept. The idea that one can change their sexuality is not one I'd argue against. I believe that is true, and that sexuality is far more fluid than we'd like to admit. And I'm certain that there are some people who have been successfully "helped" by ex-gay organisations. But their treatments are not scientific and are NOT likely to "cure" even a large minority of those who ask for their help. I'm all in favour of freedom so I think ex-gay organisations should be allowed to operate (with adults). However, it's not something one should brag about running. The treatments and tactics of these organisations are awful... Ex-Gay Watch has more on that.
3) It's possibly the least Christian response, to what they perceived as attack, that could be conceived! Whatever happened to turning the other cheek, offering a positive response or even a loving response?? Truly, truly bizarre from so-called Christians.

But saying that, I can nothing here to ban it. The advert is not offensive. I know, don't hate me, but it's not. If you find this offensive than I would ask you not read any more of the internet immediately. It's simply (alright not simply, I'm assume this is what it says given how unclear it is!) stating that straight people, ex-gays and gay folks who have moved beyond their sexuality exist and are proud too. And it makes no unscientific claims.

Recently I criticised Tim Farron for asking the ASA to give an exception to a Christian organisation that advertises that prayer heals. That is unscientific and is, 99% certainly, a false claim. No such false claim has been made in this case.

I think it should've been allowed to run on free speech grounds alone. It didn't incite violence, made no false claims (unless you deny the existence of people claiming to be ex-gay!) and isn't offensive. It was ridiculous, pointless and not very nice. But I really think all that a ban has done is kept the story, and exposure going (as proven by today's news the anti-gay organisations might attempt to sue).

People around the world want to silence LGBT people because they find what we say offensive, we must be better people than them.

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

My Disappointment With Tim Farron Grows

When Tim Farron was first elected as Lib Dem President, there was a great deal of disquiet in the Lib Dem Twitter circles I frequent. This disquiet was especially strong with regards to his LGBT record. I didn't share this feeling, and I was quite happy to come to his defense. I even passed around this link from Stephen Gilbert to help allay fears about his history.

I was confident he would be a good counterweight to the Orange Bookers in the leadership and would keep them honest. And on that point he's been moderately successful. Unfortunately on other matters that disquiet some expressed about him has begun to erode my confidence in him as a person.

First up was his use of interns from CARE and his subsequent defence of them. This worried me because it seems quite clear that they 1) vigorously oppose Lib Dem policies on marriage equality and 2) there are rather serious concerns about their treatment of Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw (no friend of this blog!). I'm not saying he shouldn't have interns from CARE, I'm a great believer in freedom of belief religiously or politically, but I do have grave concerns about someone who takes CARE interns being Lib Dem President! But I kept my mouth shut, thinking everyone has their little quirks. Some MPs support Stonewall after all...

But then comes today's news. Tim Farron, along with Tory and Labour MPs, wants the ASA to allow organisations to state that people can be healed by prayer in their adverts. Again perhaps people should have this right, and they certainly should have the right to practice their rather optimistic beliefs. But if the ASA allows that, then what exactly is the point of the ASA? I thought one of their main tasks was to ensure false claims weren't made in advertising, but if prayer is accepted as healing people then what right does the ASA have to tell ANYONE that what they state in their adverts is false?

Is Tim Farron really suggesting we should do away with the ASA? And Daniel Furr makes an excellent point too:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and spiritual intervention in medical cases are a fine example. People who are sick and require medical treatment should see a doctor, not God.

Again, if Tim Farron wants to propose we allow anyone to claim anything that they believe to be true in advertising then that's his prerogative but it's left me unable to support him and I will actively support opposition to him. His attempts to amend the way the ASA deals with advertisement claims brings his beliefs, unfortunately, into conflict with rationality and reason. And I stand on the side of rationality and reason.

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

Conservative Home: Not Talking Bollocks For Once

I know, I know, it's hard to imagine Conservative Home posting anything but paragraph after paragraph of idiocy and anger. But lo! Like the old "thousand monkeys" old wives tale, they've actually done a whole blog post that seems sensible! If you don't believe me, you can read it here:

Seven Steps To A Liberal Democrat Recovery

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