Marvel Team-Up #1000000: Tea Party & #OWS

We really need to get the Tea Party folks and the Occupy movement together. They might not agree about much but the central issue of bailing out the banks, and the financial services industry having too much power over our Governments is one they can both agree on and fight against.

I have to say I've found it amusing to see people who were so dead against the Tea Party suddenly gushing over the Occupy *Insert Place Name Here* crew. I find both movements a little unsettling, but I suspect that's just my typically British dislike of confrontation which all protest is at heart. Both are movements that represent the frustration that is being felt across much of the Anglo-Saxon world; that disillusionment with Government and politics in general that helped propel Barack Obama to such heights and gave Nick Clegg a brief moment in the limelight. 

Whilst I think the #OccupyLSX protesters are just the same leftie, big Government types that were protesting against student fees last year, I can't help feeling a little sympathy with them. They might not have solutions to our problems with which I agree, but at least they've recognised there is a problem and are doing something about it.

Our entire financial system, the dodgy PFI and PPP's so beloved of New Labour, and the relationship between corporations and our Government needs a complete overhaul. The left might think that means more Government control, the right might think it needs less. But both are starting to realise something radical needs to change. Perhaps if the two sides started working together rather than sniping at each other, things might actually get done.

The people behind the Cleggist Uprising, were left unsatisfied by the results of the 2010 election and it's aftermath. Did we really think they were going to go away? The Occupy movement might fizzle out and disappear. But something else will just come in it's stead. The people are unhappy, and I don't think they'll stop until something truly fundamental changes.

Where's the UK's version of Ron Paul when you need him? 

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

The Real Marriage Equality Battle Has Begun

The Scottish consultation on religious civil partnerships and marriage equality makes the Westminster version look positively backward. Whilst Westminster has categorically stated what can and cannot be involved in the consultation, the Scottish Executive has been a lot more open in allowing a more frank discussion on FULL marriage equality.

And this means that the opposition, that dark conservative grouping of Telegraph journalists and Catholic priests and all the miserable souls in between, has moved from grumbling to action.

For years the fight has simply been to get marriage equality on the agenda. The Stonewall controversy, the lobbying of politicians, the endless debates with civil partnership fanatics; these were all just about getting everybody singing from the same hymn book. Now the real battle has begun in the north, and the opposition of the Catholic Church ironically makes it far easier to argue the case for marriage equality. Now the weak links in the LGBT rights cause will have to toughen up and start fighting back. Thank you Archbishop Mario Conti!

You can read his full statement from the weekend here, but one thing that interests me, as a libertarian leaning sort, was this particular statement:

However the question would not be asked were it not for the increasing acceptance, wittingly or unwittingly, of a particular ideology which considers all structures and ethical systems as inimical to human freedom.  It places personal autonomy above even physical realities so that, for example, the very determination of one’s own sex and gender is regarded as an issue of choice – even a supposed human right.

This is one of the telling differences between his world view and my own. Whilst the anarchist world view of no structures at all seems to fly in the face of the realities of the human condition, the idea that choosing how we wish to live our life, how our bodies look and how we describe ourselves is somehow wrong boggles my mind. Who does he think he is to tell others that they must live their lives exactly how he wants them to live and to not aim to improve themselves in anyway they wish? This authoritarian arrogance is the achilles heel of the opposition's case, and should be exploited as much as possible.

His plan to encourage the Catholic voters of Scotland to block vote is another sign of the Catholic Church's desperate desire for power over individuals and Government's. I suspect the Catholic voters of Scotland are more intelligent and independent than their Church leadership gives them credit for.

The basic premise of the argument against marriage equality is that "same sex advocates" are involved in a conspiracy (get those tin foil hats ready) to change the meaning of marriage and undermine society in general. As far as supervillian plans go, it seems very uninspiring. But that's the funny thing. Far from wanting to undermine marriage, most marriage equality supporters want to get join and thus support that very conservative institution of marriage. As Chris Ashford says in an article regarding a Telegraph hate piece:

Moore reminds us that the 'victories' of gay marriage/same-sex marriage are in fact about the incorporation of homosexuals to heteronormative institutions. These acts of 'progress' are not about a fundamental re-appraisal of the marriage construct, which remains inherently conservative.  As such, these attacks by the likes of Moore can act as a 'smokescreen', creating a reaction among LGBTQ activists to argue for same-sex marriage - if the nuts are against it, we must be for it.

It's time to get dug in and start the fight for marriage equality, for what is happening in Scotland is bound to be repeated here in the south. Scottish readers should respond the consultation, and the rest of us should begin a letter writing frenzy!

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

Liberals For Ron Paul: Bridging Troubled Waters

There is so much common ground on which Ron Paul supporters and leftie liberal types can stand on, that it boggles the mind that they haven't joined forces to move the United States in a direction they could both state was better than the current status quo. I've always said, my dream 2012 ticket would be Paul/Kucinich!

Item 1: Executing US citizens

I am aghast at the laid-back way many Democrats have accepted President Obama's decision to order the murder of an American citizen. The Salon puts it well in it's article "Execution by secret White House committee". It's almost unthinkable to think that any of the Republican candidates would have done differently with the honourable exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. With no serious challenge from the left, it's really a no-brainer that to get rid of this authoritarian administration (and not replace it with a worse one) then you need to support Ron Paul! Put your economic beliefs aside for now, this is about something far more important; the rights of US citizens to a fair trial and due process and their right to life itself! It doesn't get more important than that.

Item 2: Occupy Wall Street Both the people behind Occupy Wall Street and libertarians have missed a trick. Imagine if they had focussed the protests on the fact the US Government bailed out the corrupt corporations and continues to have unhealthily close relationship with the individuals and institutions at the top of the finance industry. The common ground could have made these protests into a truly huge event. Instead the Occupy Wall Street folks on the ground have made this an "us against them" argument about individual wealth and taxation and have brought in all sorts of demands only loosely related to the main issue (free college education etc.), putting off a large proportion of the middle-of-the-road US population. And libertarians, rather than pointing out the areas of agreement, have joined right in with the narrative and the name-calling and consider them all loony socialists. If Americans really want to stop the fat cats from getting subsidies and backhanders from the Government then they need to stop deluding themselves that President Obama is going to do anything about it and vote for someone who really will cut off the cash flow to the corporate vampires: Ron Paul! There's a cut the left and libertarians can support!

Item 3: Ending the military-industrial complex America is not a free republic. It's Government plays to the tune of various corporate interests. The billions of dollars it pours into it's military don't just go there magically, there's an entire lobbying industry working to keep America "strong" by getting public money spent on weapons. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there saying that, whilst he respects the work of the men and women of the US military services, he will scale back the extent of the bloated US forces and their international committments. Ron Paul is the peace candidate.

Since Obama took office, the left's opposition to violence and military spending has become strangely muted. Here's another issue on which they can revive their good principles and share them with opponents to the mutual benefit of both. A vote for Ron Paul is the only vote that's going to help kick the military-industrial complex out of America. There are so many issues on which leftie liberals and classical liberals disagree. Health care, social security, etc. etc. BUT these issues aren't going to be solved under the current administration. They need to be put aside whilst the basic rights of US citizens to life, to a Government of the people and to freedom are regained after the decades of erosion. Then both sides can get back to arguing over their pet projects and pet hates. Voting for Ron Paul is the only way to bring about a real change, and create a new status quo in the world's greatest republic.  

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

Scottish Tory Leader Contenders On Marriage Equality

The Equality Network has helpfully provided some quotes from a Sunday Herald interviews with the Scottish Conservative Party leadership contenders on marriage equality: 

The Sunday Herald yesterday interviewed the four candidates for leader of the Scottish Conservatives. One of the questions was “Do you support the introduction of gay marriage?”

Jackson Carlaw said “Those churches which are content to hold gay marriage ceremonies should be allowed to do so. Those churches that do not wish to do so should not be compelled.”

Ruth Davidson said “I do support the introduction, but with a vital proviso: that faith organisations should not be compelled to perform ceremonies if they do not wish to.”

Murdo Fraser said “I support religious groups having the freedom to carry out same-sex unions if they wish. I support civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but am sceptical as to whether the definition of marriage should be amended to include these.”

Margaret Mitchell said “I’m fully supportive of civil partnerships. For me under the Christian faith, marriage is between a man and a woman.”

 I don't think that requires further comment... 

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

I'm Just Waiting For The Anti-Miliband Protests

Last year in the run up to his election for Labour leader Ed Miliband said:

I’ve been interested to see that the government is giving serious thought to introducing a Graduate Tax, rather than raising Tuition Fees.

The issue is coming to a head as Lord Browne is due to report on University funding in the autumn — and it’s possible that he could recommend that fees rise to £7,000 or even £10,000.

But the Graduate Tax is a fairer alternative, and one I’ve been arguing for for some time.

This is an important matter of principle. The supremacy of the market has extended too far into areas that should not be defined by commodity and exchange. But it is also a practical question. As fees rise further, less well-off as well as part-time students will be even less likely to apply to more expensive universities and so damage their opportunities. That does not fit in with the values of this party or this country.

An important matter of principle, huh? One so important that yesterday evening Ed Miliband did a complete about turn and instead chose to support, in principle, higher tuition fees! In fact the Government, though setting the higher end tuition fees to £9000, had hoped universities would charge around the £6000 figure Ed Miliband now supports a cap at! 

I, of course, can't wait to see the far left and students groups marching through the streets of Liverpool protesting this "betrayal" and demanding Miliband's head (perhaps with some offensive execution placards and props) like they did over Nick Clegg's and the Lib Dems "betrayal" (note Lib Dems did not say they'd introduce raising fees if they'd gotten a majority in Parliament, unlike Miliband who is now saying exactly that). I suspect I may find myself disappointed. I'm sure those tuition fee Lib Dem defectors to the Labour party will be extremely happy to have made the move. 


Miliband's suggestion is, in fact, of little help to those in most need and of most help to those who don't need assistance. Sara Bedford lists the issues his ill-thought out policy throws up. 


Let's face it, this policy has been suggested as a headline grabber that doesn't do what it's implied to do (help the most needy) and instead hopes to hoodwink the desperate, the young and the disillusioned into supporting a party that is completely devoid of principled and different policies. It's same old New Labour spin, and doesn't bode well for the seemingly never ending Labour policy review's findings. I doubt progressives, liberals or lefties will find much to celebrate when more new policies are announced. 


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

What The #LDConf Did, A View From Afar.

This post might be better known as "things that interested me at the Lib Dem conference". 


A Review Of Drug Laws


An excellent, sensible proposal was put to conference suggesting that a panel be formed to review our current drug laws and propose new ways forward. This might mean the liberalisation of drug laws among other things. As someone who doesn't do drugs and who, as a child, lived through the experience of a drugs raid, you'd think I wouldn't be sympathetic towards liberalisation. But I believe, based on my feelings and on the evidence I've seen, that the current way of dealing with drugs is causing more problems than it's solving and if we are to deal with drug addiction as a society there are far better and more civilised ways of doing it than just a blanket ban. 


I was extremely please to see conference pass this. 


The Infamous "Ban" On Page 3 Girls


I think Andrew Emmerson said it best in his post stating clearly that yesterdays F26 motion doesn't ban Page 3 girls. As someone who reads more sensible libertarian publications such as Reason Magazine, I did find the knee-jerk horror of the libertarians on Twitter hilarious. Calm down dears, it's only a conference motion. 


However... I have major issues with the fuzzy, ill-thought out way the particular part of the motion in question was written:

“Tackling the projection of women as sex objects to children and adolescents by restricting sexualised images in newspapers and general circulation magazines to the same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media.” 

1) Can only women be "sex objects"? Would this motion deal with sexualised imagery of men?
2) Restricting? How? Complete ban? Moving to the top shelf? Doing the same as what WH Smith did to gay mags recently? Totally unclear, which means it's open to the "Lib Dems Would Ban Page 3 Girls" accusations people have already been making! 
3) "same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media" WHAT?? We are talking about very different media formats here and I cannot fathom what this might mean. The Sun can only be sold after 9pm? 


I've always found it bemusing that lads mags have, until recently, always been on one of the higher shelves in a magazine store whilst The Sun, the Daily Star and worse the Daily Sport were all on the floor where anyone could see them. I've found that inconsistent and you know how I dislike that. But I really don't see what this motion was trying to achieve. Pointless and should never have been passed. 


Science Not Stigma; Overturning The Blood Ban


Since I last wrote about the Government's stance on the blood ban, they have changed their mind and now brought their position to the point of only banning gay men who have had sex in the last 12 months. As you can imagine I find that just as ridiculous as the originally suggested 10 year ban! 


Thankfully today the Lib Dem conference voted to make overturning the blood ban for men who have sex with men completely. Despite the half-way house approach to LGBT rights that this Coalition Government appears to be taking (doing as little as they can get away with whilst still being considered better than Labour), the Liberal Democrats continue to move ahead of the pack when it comes to LGBT freedom. Good move conference. Good move!

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