There has been much debate about the debate, especially over whether...
read my new blog at http://tumblr.com/xce8nnm4z
Thursday 15 April 2010
Saturday 3 April 2010
This blog is movin'!
This blog has now moved to...
http://wotsnews.tumblr.comAlso follow me at...
http://twitter.com/marionwsteelCome join me!
Monday 29 March 2010
Which party is he for again?
Just in the middle of the Ask the Chancellor debate. Can't help but notice the constant "And George/Alistair/Vince will agree with me here...". They're all having a difficult time telling us what they'll do differently. You can't get a cigarette paper between them!
There may be a new burst of consensual politics or it may be that they are all too scared to get into the details.
So far though George Osbourne is fairing the worst: both the Chancellor and Vince Cable have got a few hits so far.
There may be a new burst of consensual politics or it may be that they are all too scared to get into the details.
So far though George Osbourne is fairing the worst: both the Chancellor and Vince Cable have got a few hits so far.
Equality: Let us not forget how far we have come - or how far we still have to go.
Labour MP, Chris Bryant, has become the first person to hold a civil partnership ceremony in the Palace of Westminster. This reminds us that for all the things Labour promised in 1997, gay rights is one area where they have really delivered. But how far have we came in those 13 years? Is it really “job done”?
Some of the key achievements have been:
• an equalisation of the age of consent;
• a repeal of Section 28/Clause 2A;
• civil partnerships;
• gay adoption;
• gays allowed to serve in the military;
• a ban on discrimination in the work place and in the provision of goods and services;
• the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and
• the Human Rights Act and the more recent Equality Bill going through parliament.
On paper it’s easy to see why so many people say “gays have equality, they need to stop banging on about it”. But this simply isn’t true. The “civil partnership” of Chris Bryant MP is a case in point. The fact that it happened in the Palace of Westminster symbolises the great leaps in equality in the last few years. However, the fact that it took place in the members dining room and not in the Palace chapel where weddings normally take place show how far we have to come. Given that Mr Bryant is a former “Church of England curate and chaplain” it is likely he would have liked it to take place in a church but the Civil Partnership Act specifically excludes them taking place in any religious building – regardless of whether the religion would like to or not.
It is obvious that this was added to the Act to placate religions that are less tolerant of gays and lesbians but its effect is to actually discriminate against gays and lesbians who are religious. Whether Civil Partnerships are called marriages or not should not be the issue – it should be whether or not both forms of partnership both have equality of rights. At first glance it is ludicrous to create a whole new law and form of ceremony at a high cost to the taxpayer when only a few lines of the Marriage Act need be changed. However, this has been done specifically to allow for minor revisions in the law to placate those who were opposed to the whole project.
For example, the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act is almost an identical document to the Marriage (Scotland) Act except for a few changes. One such change is, as said, that Civil Partnerships may not take place in places of religion another is that witnesses must be over 16 (as opposed to the Marriage Act wording “must profess to be over 16”). Yes, this is a legal technicality that may prove to be inconsequential but, if so, why do it? It suggests that if witnesses prove not to be over 16 the partnership may be void. Maybe this is a nice revision that the marriage law would benefit from but why not change the marriage law aswell?
If gays and lesbians were truly to have equality there wouldn’t be these silly differences in law, and Chris Bryant MP could have got married in a church. Nonetheless, when Members of the House of Lords proposed such an amendment (and added it to the Equality Bill by a majority of 74) both the Labour and Conservative “Equality” spokespeople in the Lords opposed the move. Why?
Some of the key achievements have been:
• an equalisation of the age of consent;
• a repeal of Section 28/Clause 2A;
• civil partnerships;
• gay adoption;
• gays allowed to serve in the military;
• a ban on discrimination in the work place and in the provision of goods and services;
• the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and
• the Human Rights Act and the more recent Equality Bill going through parliament.
On paper it’s easy to see why so many people say “gays have equality, they need to stop banging on about it”. But this simply isn’t true. The “civil partnership” of Chris Bryant MP is a case in point. The fact that it happened in the Palace of Westminster symbolises the great leaps in equality in the last few years. However, the fact that it took place in the members dining room and not in the Palace chapel where weddings normally take place show how far we have to come. Given that Mr Bryant is a former “Church of England curate and chaplain” it is likely he would have liked it to take place in a church but the Civil Partnership Act specifically excludes them taking place in any religious building – regardless of whether the religion would like to or not.
It is obvious that this was added to the Act to placate religions that are less tolerant of gays and lesbians but its effect is to actually discriminate against gays and lesbians who are religious. Whether Civil Partnerships are called marriages or not should not be the issue – it should be whether or not both forms of partnership both have equality of rights. At first glance it is ludicrous to create a whole new law and form of ceremony at a high cost to the taxpayer when only a few lines of the Marriage Act need be changed. However, this has been done specifically to allow for minor revisions in the law to placate those who were opposed to the whole project.
For example, the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act is almost an identical document to the Marriage (Scotland) Act except for a few changes. One such change is, as said, that Civil Partnerships may not take place in places of religion another is that witnesses must be over 16 (as opposed to the Marriage Act wording “must profess to be over 16”). Yes, this is a legal technicality that may prove to be inconsequential but, if so, why do it? It suggests that if witnesses prove not to be over 16 the partnership may be void. Maybe this is a nice revision that the marriage law would benefit from but why not change the marriage law aswell?
If gays and lesbians were truly to have equality there wouldn’t be these silly differences in law, and Chris Bryant MP could have got married in a church. Nonetheless, when Members of the House of Lords proposed such an amendment (and added it to the Equality Bill by a majority of 74) both the Labour and Conservative “Equality” spokespeople in the Lords opposed the move. Why?
Wednesday 24 March 2010
Dumblebore and the 2010 Budget
Dumblebore presenting HM Government's 2010 BudgetI know, that's silly. Dumbledore had more convincing eyebrows than Alistair Darling. But Professor Trelawney's crystal ball may have been consulted to predict our economic future (too far?). Seriously though, the budget is all black magic to me.
Take for example something you think would be a simple fact: the value of this years Scottish budget and the change from last year. Not so, it's election year!
John Swinney, SNP Finance Secretary: “our overall budget is falling in real terms in the forthcoming year for the first time since devolution.”
Jim Murphy, Labour Scottish Secretary: "Next year the Scottish Government will have the highest ever budget - more than double what
Donald Dewar had."
How can they be getting this from the same figures? I tried some investigation with mixed results (any help would be appreciated!).
According to the budget planned ‘departmental’ spending limit for Scotland 2010-2011: £26.2 billion (resource) £3.2 billion (capital) [total - £29.4 billion]. The 2009 estimate spending limit for Scotland: £25.6 billion (resource) £3.9 billion (capital) [total £29.5 billion].
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Yes They Did
After decades of trying, and failing, the Democrats in the US have finally managed to pass meaningful health care legislation. For Senator Ted Kennedy it sadly came to late but for the estimated 30 million uninsured Americans who will now gain health coverage - his legacy lives on. It calls for us to pause and reflect, in the midst of this terrible recession that has tired us as a nation and has drawn politicians further apart from each other and the people they serve: change is still possible. Indeed, in the midst of a crisis, change is not a bad thing - it becomes imperative. Was it not the Labour government of 1945 facing one of Britain's worst economic crises that radically reformed the UK? They introduced the NHS and expanded the welfare State immensely because it was the right thing to do for the British people.
Yet today our politicians fight over how deep to make cuts, cuts that will go to the core of this very safety net that is the pride of Britain and envied the world over. This is not the answer. It's not the answer President Obama has found nor most of the Western world. The recession should not be seen as a crisis - it is an opportunity. An opportunity to reform this bankrupt State for the benefit of the people who feel so left behind and excluded. It is not enough for politicians to publish their expenses receipts online, to twitter their every move - they must reform the whole political system and regain the trust of the British people.
An electoral system that gives the people a Parliament that they want would go a long way to doing this - it is disgraceful that proportional representation has not been introduced, primarily because politicians fear their cosy majorities. After a decade of devolution, England needs it's own voice - English votes for English laws simply is not enough. England must have its own Parliament properly representing the issues that matter to them. Finally, we've still seen little of how the parties will overhaul the financial system - until they get bankers bonuses under control they will not command the respect of the British people.
These are just some thoughts on what I think will make a difference to the people and their engagement with the political system. But it is for Parliament to debate amongst themselves and with the people to find a radical solution to this current situation - Obama is one step closer to his solution in the US: we must heed his example.
Sunday 21 March 2010
Historic Vote
Just a quick post on tonights vote in the US Congress bringing the healthcare bill one step closer. What has been an eye-opener is how often the word "historic" is used. How often are votes in the Scottish or UK Parliaments described as "historic" and how many in the last decade could truly be described as historic?
As I've said before, our current politicians can't see further than the next election - they don't do historic (with the possible exception of the devolution acts in the UK Parliament).
Usually when they talk about truly "historic" reforms - constitutional reform, electoral reform, joining the euro, reform of the lords - there is certainly no "fierce urgency of now". Britain is bankrupt so maybe their should be more urgency?
As I've said before, our current politicians can't see further than the next election - they don't do historic (with the possible exception of the devolution acts in the UK Parliament).
Usually when they talk about truly "historic" reforms - constitutional reform, electoral reform, joining the euro, reform of the lords - there is certainly no "fierce urgency of now". Britain is bankrupt so maybe their should be more urgency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
