Thursday, 15 April 2010
The #leadersdebate – What to Expect
read my new blog at http://tumblr.com/xce8nnm4z
Saturday, 3 April 2010
This blog is movin'!
http://wotsnews.tumblr.comAlso follow me at...
http://twitter.com/marionwsteelCome join me!
Monday, 29 March 2010
Which party is he for again?
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.
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
I 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
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Historic Vote
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?