The Tories want us to have a "strong and stable Government". They display their desire for this by, in the middle of some of the most important negotiations in our nation's history, calling a snap election which risks Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. In fact Boris Johnson said the "consequences would be calamitous" if Corbyn became Prime Minister.
So why risk it with an unnecessary election? Because May is an opportunist. She claims to work in the best interests of the country but, when she saw the Tory poll lead was nearly 20 points above Labour, she couldn't resist gambling OUR future for HER party's fortunes.
A strong and stable party would've planned a better manifesto than the one the Tories launched. After years of campaigning against an inheritance tax, they proposed one that is not even half-baked yet (regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, even May doesn't seem to know how it'll work). At a time when they are trying to sell the "positives" of Brexit they released a deeply depressing manifesto based around a new third way concept; the "tax and charge" style of Government.
We've had austerity with tax decreases. We've had tax and spend. Now the Tories propose an austerity with extra charges for allsorts (including for voting where they propose ID must be used in order to be able to vote but there is no free form of ID!!!!). It is the darkest and bleakest of manifestos.
The Tories keep asking for us to choose who would be best to negotiate Brexit. Forgetting the PM won't actually be negotiating Brexit, they want us to choose either May or Corbyn. Yet May has shown she is easily rattled, a terrible speaker, scared to go on election debates and (worst of all) utterly incompetent at running an election campaign when she's standing against the worst Labour leader in living memory.
So why the Hell would we actively choose her???
Let's run this again:
Tories so worried about Corbyn becoming PM that they gave us the opportunity to make that happen when they didn't need to.
Tories think someone who has shown herself to be awful at just about everything since she became PM will be the best person to negotiate the most important deal in our country's history
Tories want us to pay, pay, pay but will tell us all they are the party that supports low taxation and "hard-working families".
The worst thing is... they'll bloody win by a mile.
This country is damned if we do, damned if we don't. But don't let the Tories think that their victory will mean they'll make a success of anything.
They couldn't organise an election even when they controlled the timescales. Our future looks very bleak indeed.
But Jae, I hear you say. The debate is over. We've got equal marriage. Let's move on and work together. It is about helping end bullying (well if its homophobic anyway, otherwise the kids are on their own). Blah blah blah. Won't somebody think of the children? Etc.
I'm no radical queer here. You guys often tell me off for holding things politicians did 30 years ago against them today (because being anti-LGBT youth turns out to have an "unacceptability" expiry date). But this is something she did last year! We haven't even got marriage equality yet, and instead of opposing such an incredibly awful choice for equality minister people at the very top of the "leading" LGB charity in this country are choosing to help her (though I hasten to add Tryl has left his position at Stonewall to go and aid Morgan).
Does nobody else find this infuriating? Am I the only person just aghast at this whole rubbish chain of events? I don't really agree with much of what Peter Tatchell believes but I'm thinking I need to increase my £5.00 monthly donation to him just to bring back some balance.
Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."
UKIP voters want to halt the same-sex marriage Bill? Really? Let us look at the evidence. The Coalition for Marriage, understandably, likes to terrify the jumpy Tory traditionalists with its tales of doom for any who support marriage equality. They crow about how the same-sex marriage Bill is causing people to leave in droves. Yet their own survey shows only 26% of 2010 Tory voters would be less likely to vote for them because of this issue. That is less likely not "completely unlikely" and that percentage is not even all those Tory voters who oppose same-sex marriage (last year half of all 2010 Tory voters were stated as opposing it).
C4M likes to draw conclusions that because this many say this and this many say that there is some link between same-sex marriage and the Conservatives current woes.
However in a YouGov survey this week, where potential 2015 UKIP voters were asked to mark up to 3 issues as their top reasons for supporting UKIP, only 12% of those surveyed marked opposition to gay marriage as a reason.
Even the more open, but possibly related, reason "Ukip reflect personal values and beliefs" only got 20%. By far and away the top reasons for voting for UKIP were immigration and the EU (no surprise there then). As many Tories like to say: the public don't care about equal marriage.
The equal marriage bill is something that will benefit few people but, when asked, a majority support the legalisation of same-sex marriage. For all C4M and the right-wing Tory carping, it is a non-issue and even if UKIP had an equal number of MPs to what the Lib Dems have at the moment there'd still be no reason to suggest this marked a complete rejection by the electorate of this policy.
The Tories are projecting their desperation to vote down equal marriage on to an electorate who have quite different priorities. Showing just how out of touch they really are and perhaps that explains the rise of UKIP more than any one policy.
Those Tories, David Cameron merely needs to take his eye off them for a minute and one starts saying something silly.
Step forward David Jones MP, Secretary of State for Wales, who has decided not only to suggest something many anti-LGBT people believe (that same-sex parenting is, at the very least, not ideal) but to also go one step further when he says:
"I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do."
"Which is not to say that I'm in any sense opposed to stable and committed same-sex partnerships."
So what he has just said there is that CLEARLY same-sex partners can't offer a "warm and safe environment" for children. This is quite a different idea to that proposed by more moderate, and thoughtful, opponents of same-sex parenting who focus on whether the life chances of children are better or worse with same-sex parents. That is a debate that has been going on for a very long time and one I'm not going to get involved with (although, full disclosure, my boyfriend's son lives with us both but I wouldn't claim to be his "parent"). But what David Jones has said is that same-sex parents can't love children as much as heterosexual parents (even adoptive ones) nor offer them safety. This is quite obviously wrong. It stinks, in fact, of the age-old insults leveled at gay men that we are all paedophiles.
He later said:
"I made the point of stressing that I was fully supportive of committed same-sex relationships. I also strongly approve of civil partnerships."
"I did not say in the interview that same-sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view."
"I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners."
That is categorically NOT what he said. David Jones. What a piece of work.
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.
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 1988
Thanks 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 law
This 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
Phillip Schofield, in an ill-advised stunt, "confronted" David Cameron with a list of names of people suspected of paedophilia (by people online). I've no evidence they aren't but I suspect Schofield has no evidence they are. If he does he's best talking to the police about his accusations. I'm pretty sure David Cameron already knows who is suspect of paedophilia at this point, I doubt his advisers have been slow to fill him in given how big a story this has become.
"There is a danger, if we're not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I'm worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now - giving me a list of names that you've taken off the internet."
Warning against witch-hunts, which let's face it aren't that unusual in this country when it comes to paedophilia, is sensible. And people, especially online, do have a habit of accusing gay and bisexual men (or even heterosexual men accused of being gay) of paedophilia so warning against this is sort of sensible.
I was concerned that, in bringing this up, Cameron may well be giving just the angle to the story certain media outlets would love to have to spin this scandal from paedophilia to homosexuality (and some of the accusations so far have been of men with boys over 16 but under the age of consent at the time when the sex occurred).
Unfortunately his comments have been taken in the wrong way (or used to politically attack him) by many on Twitter. They are accusing him of linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Which he did but only in warning against linking them!
It is sad we have come to the point where we attack someone who is trying to protect LGBT people from undeserved accusations, probably some of his colleagues and friends who will have been named but may not be guilty. People online really do make these connections, often in vivid and disturbing detail. Just read some of the stuff on Guido Fawkes website sometimes and you'll see how much homophobia is expressed through paedophilia jokes. David Cameron was not wrong and I am pleased he has stood up and called for reason and caution on what is obviously a very emotive subject.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't rigourously investigate allegations of paedophilia. But we need to do better than rumours and innuendo. And when someone tries to defend LGBT people, let us not cut them down just because it suits our political agenda. Even if that someone is a Tory Prime Minister.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
