Equality, consistency, and the rights of Christian B & B owners

Consider the following news item:

'Now some people are more equal than others': Despair of Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away interracial couple

Two Christian hotel owners punished for refusing a bed to an interracial couple claimed yesterday that their religion is being suppressed.

Arthur and Martha Bloggs said Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society, and added: ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They spoke out after a landmark court decision awarded £1,800 each to James Smith (black) and Anne Jones (white), who were denied a double room under the Bloggs’ biblically-inspired policy of allowing only couples of the same race to share a bed in the hotel that is also their home.

This story is imaginary.  But I have constructed it using almost exactly the same words and details as those which appeared in the Daily's Mail's reporting of the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who, a judge ruled yesterday, acted unlawfully in refusing to allow gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy to share a bed on their premises.

The Bulls' right to refuse, on grounds of conscience, to accommodate gay couples' requests to share double beds has been defended in the usual rightwing quarters - not only the Mail but, for instance, by Christian conservative blogger Archbishop Cranmer, and a contributor on ConservativeHome.

However, those who sympathise with the Bulls owe it to us to explain where their loyalties would lie in my imagined scenario, and - if it would not again lie with the B & B owners - what accounts for the difference, in their eyes, between religiously-motivated discrimination towards same-sex and interracial couples respectively.

Now, it will not do for them to try to evade the question by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that my case could ever arise.  We know that Christians have in the past been just as opposed to interracial relationships as same-sex relationships, and in particular that various biblical passages were invoked in support of anti-miscegenation laws in the US.  Who could confidently deny that there are at least some who still, quietly, agree with the words of the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia to the effect that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Nor will it do to suggest that discrimination against gay couples is alone acceptable because, whilst Christian opposition to homosexuality is amply founded in the 'valid' interpretation of biblical passages, opposition to interracial marriage is based on biblical 'misreadings'.  The state does not - cannot - get into the business of ruling on what counts as valid interpretation of holy texts, nor create law on that basis.

Nor again can defenders of religious discrimination against gay people claim that, whilst Christian opposition to homosexuality is common and mainstream, only at most a few lone kooks would now take the same view of miscegenation.  In a liberal democracy, religious freedom cannot be made contingent on the popularity of the belief in question.

Nor, finally, can they distinguish between the Bulls and the B & B owners in my example by claiming that, whilst the latter are guilty of racism - that is, prejudice directed against an unchosen characteristic of a person - the former have merely refused to play host to a certain kind of behaviour with which they disagree - namely, homosexual activity.  For my case can equally be described as involving a refusal to tolerate a certain kind of behaviour - namely, sexual activity between people of different races.

Conservatives who bite the bullet, and endorse the idea that religious B & B owners ought to have the right to turn away interracial as well as same-sex couples unquestionably put themselves beyond the pale of mainstream British public opinion.  I doubt that many supporters of the Bulls would be prepared to do so.  However, if they don't, they can be indicted for being prepared to deny some groups but not others the full protection of the law, based on nothing more than their own, ad hoc personal preferences.  For such conservatives, it is certainly true that, in the Bulls' words, 'some people are more equal than others'.  But, equally certainly, it is not gay people who are at the top of the heap.

Labour's electoral system needs urgent reform

By writing this I imagine I will be accused of being a sore loser. I did, after all, back the other Miliband. However, my objection to Labour's electoral system isn't about who won, but the manner of his winning. All Labour members have an interest in ensuring that the party leader wins clearly and unambiguously.  That is not what has happened with the election of Ed Miliband.

The electoral college system was designed to ensure that the leader of the party is acceptable to, and has the support of, the various party stakeholders - MPs, rank-and-file members, and affiliates/unions.  However, it failed, in this case, to produce a result that looked like a consensus between these groups.  Instead, the system pitted them against each other.  The electoral college system promotes the appearance of factionalism within the party.  It has given us a leader whom, it can be claimed without obviously distorting the truth, owes his victory to one constituency, when the other two came out for someone else.

That Ed Miliband can be painted by Labour's opponents, from his first moment in the job, as the candidate of a vested interest rather than of his party en masse is a serious defect of the system.  Labour should not be happy with an electoral system that hands ammunition to its enemies, and gives the winning candidate a mixed, uncertain mandate to lead the party.  Nor should it be happy with a system that draws distinctions between groups of voters, as though they are in opposition to one another, vying for dominance.

These problems would be solved by a one-member-one-vote system.  George Eaton has already argued that the current system hands too much power to MPs.  Oddly, however, he is happy for there to be a distinct affiliates section within the electoral college.  That ought to be abolished too, however (or, more accurately, submerged within the members' section).

This would end the situation whereby some people have multiple votes, as members of several affiliated organisations.  That aspect of the current system already casts a shadow over its democratic credentials.

Abolishing the affiliates section also ends the odd situation whereby people who are trade union members who are not card carrying party members get to have a say over the party leader.  Rank-and-file members may feel somewhat aggrieved that non-members can, in sufficient numbers, contradict and overturn their choice for leader.  I do not think it would be entirely unreasonable for them to feel that way.

Most importantly, abolishing the affiliates section ends the suggestion that those who vote in it are an identifiable bloc whose interests and preferences are potentially opposed to, and need to be balanced against, those of regular party members.

Now, George Eaton and others defend the affiliates section on grounds that it represents democracy in action - a mass plebiscite of 'ordinary workers'.  True, but what is the members' section, then, if not that?  The problem here is the fact that the electoral college is set up to contrast the members with  affiliates, and therefore to contrast a leadership victory secured on the basis of members' votes with one that relies of union votes.  What we need is a system that hands victory to the candidate that get the most Labour votes, without distinction.

I am not arguing that union members ought to be disenfranchised.  I am arguing that there ought not to be distinctions between different voting blocs in leadership elections.  Union members who pay into the political fund and are eligible to vote in the affiliates section should be given membership cards, and vote in their capacity as members.  That means, in particular, that they should receive their ballot papers through the party, not the union.  The unions can mail members separately with their recommendations about how they should use their votes.  Nobody should have multiple votes.

Let's hope this is the last Labour leadership election that gives onlookers the impression that the winner has anything less than the support of a clear majority of his party.  If we had had such a system this time around, it would have been better for Ed Miliband, and for Labour members who care about the political fortunes of their party, whichever candidate they supported.

Does the Times/Populus poll vindicate the Balls approach to the deficit?

Sunder Katwala has details of this latest poll, which shows the public rejecting the Coalition's hell-for-leather deficit reduction policy:

Populus asked the public to identify which of three deficit reduction plans they agree with most, without identifying which party or group was advocating each position. Over a third of voters, 37 per cent, say they prefer Labour’s position [i.e. the Darling plan, taken forward by David Miliband - SP] to halve the deficit by the next election and deal with it over ten years.

The same number [37 per cent] say that protecting the vulnerable and keeping unemployment as low as possible should be bigger priorities than reducing the budget deficit.

Only one in five voters, 22 per cent, agree with the coalition plan to deal with the deficit by the next general election, in five years’ time.

Whose policy did Populus have in mind in asking about the second policy option, which prioritises jobs and protecting vulnerable people over the deficit?  I imagine supporters of Ed Balls will infer that Populus had in mind his approach.  So I expect to hear the following kind of argument now from them, in light of the poll:

The Balls plan, as this poll shows, chimes with the instincts of voters, even though it has no support to speak of in the media, and has only recently come to prominence, through the Balls campaign.  If, under these conditions, it level pegs with the Darling/David Miliband plan to halve the deficit, we should be confident that it would win the argument if adopted wholeheartedly by Labour.  Labour needs to have the courage to break out of the cosy rightwing consensus on the deficit, and reap the electoral rewards.

This response, however, is not yet justified, because Populus did not give people a choice between the Balls plan and the Darling/DM plan.  Both the first two options which Populus gave to respondents could be fair descriptions of the Darling/DM plan.  This is because, as Duncan Weldon, Hopi Sen, myself and others have all emphasised, the latter comes with an escape clause whereby deficit reduction can be frozen or slowed if the economy shows signs of going south.  David Miliband's plan does not prioritise the deficit over unemployment and vulnerable people - far from.  So it would be a mistake for Labourites to read from this poll that there is a head of steam building building behind the Balls strategy.  Indeed, that looks unlikely, because, as Sunny Hundal has shown us, other polling indicates that the public do believe that there is a need to tackle the deficit through at least some cuts.

'Will Mr Ratzinger listen to a rap singer?'

Following on from Tim Minchin's Pope Song earlier this year, now Dan Bull has a go at bashing the bishop over child abuse:



NSFW, on grounds of language. Though if you're listening with headphones, co-workers may just think you're typing an email!

Sunny Hundal on the deficit

Responding to my post from yesterday about the Labour leadership candidates and the deficit, Sunny tweets:

'there's little evidence to support that. Polling actually shows Labour started losing when they started accepting Tory args'

First and foremost, this merely repeats what I have stressed to be untrue, namely that DM's deficit plan relies on/replicates Tory arguments.  Sunny's repeated claims to this effect are not helpful to the cause of accurate analysis.

Leave that aside, though.  When did Labour start accepting Tory arguments on the deficit, according to Sunny?  Apparently in around March 2010 (i.e. around Darling's last budget).  Sunny points me to an older post of his on LabourList, in which he exhibits a graph, produced by Ipsos Mori, which shows a point in March 2010 when voters seem to have begun to agree in greater numbers that 'there is a real need to cut spending on public services in order to pay off the very high national debt we have now':

Sunny claims that, in March 2010, Labour's arguments on the deficit began to go 'haywire', in the sense that the party started to accept the need for cuts, and adopted the Darling deficit reduction plan.  Sunny's theory is that when Labour altered its stance to accept the need for cuts it 'started losing' because voters came to think that they should vote for the Tories, who had consistently demanded cuts, rather than Labour, which had changed its view.

Sunny forgets that the reason Labour changed its approach was that its refusal to discuss cuts, in the face of a media that was screaming from the top of its lungs that they were necessary, was becoming untenable.  The 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts' line was widely seen as a fabrication of Gordon Brown's, and castigated as such.  The media drumbeat on cuts was simply irresistible.  Sunny is rewriting history by pretending that, when Labour adopted a deficit reduction plan it did itself a needless, self-inflicted wound.

In addition, Sunny neglects polling that shows that, as I emphasised in my previous post, the public preferred Labour's approach to deficit reduction to the Tory plan by considerable margins.  To give some evidence of this, Sunny's chosen pollster, Ipsos Mori, shows that, in March 2010, when Labour's message started going 'haywire', the public actually preferred Labour's strategy on the deficit by 57% to 30%.  Labour seems to have lost the election in spite of its deficit reduction plan, not because of it.  So there is every reason to believe that, if a Labour leader seen as more credible than Brown were to make it now, it would be persuasive.

Most importantly, at risk of stating the obvious, Sunny's graph does not show any falling off of support for Labour as a result of its adoption of the Darling plan, because the graph does not record party vote shares, only public opinion on cuts.  If his argument were correct, one would expect to see a significant drop in support for Labour in March-April 2010, and a move towards the Tories, as the public grew disillusioned with the government's abrupt volte-face on the deficit.  That is not what happened, however.  Returning to Ipsos Mori again, their headline figures for Labour are remarkably static during this period.  Indeed, the biggest drop seen is in Tory support from March to April - exactly the point at which, according to Sunny, it should have taken off: 

2010	Con	Lab	LD

19-22 March 2010 (T)	35	30	21
18-19 April (T)	32	28	32
23 April (T)	36	30	23
5 May (T)	36	29	27
General election result (6 May)	36. 9	29.7	23.6

In short, the evidence isn't there to support Sunny's claim that the Darling/David Miliband deficit plan is a vote loser.

Finally, Sunny wants not merely to give a post mortem of the 2010 election, but to explain why Ed Balls' approach to the deficit is electorally most sound. (Though incidentally, it is not totally clear why he thinks that this is a point in favour of his own preferred candidate, Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband's policy on the deficit is not Ed Balls' [and is a good deal more ill-defined]).  But all Sunny has successfully shown is that the public now accept the need for cuts.  There is no reason to think that Labour could reverse this, and every reason to think that, if they suddenly decided to set their face against cuts, having previously supported them in an election campaign, they would be laughed out of court.  I continue to think, then, that the electorally smart approach is to accept the need to tackle the deficit whilst insisting that we adopt a slower, fairer, safer approach to doing so.

Who do the Tories want to win the Labour leadership?

Are the right praying for a David or an Ed victory?

That is the question Sunny Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy keeps returning to lately.  He has more than once claimed that the Conservatives would prefer a David Miliband victory, and are more worried about the prospect of facing his younger brother.

His evidence?  Well, that is somewhat murky.  Some indications in the press say that the Tories, including David Cameron, fear David Miliband the most.  Sunny's response has been to suggest this is a reverse ferret, designed to confuse the left into supporting the wrong candidate.  So for instance, when the Guardian ran the story that David Cameron is most concerned by the prospect of a DM victory, Sunny said that this was an 'obvious ruse', put about by someone 'who wants the Labour Party to believe this stuff'.  On Twitter, he also says today, 'If you want to know who Tories fear - look at who they disparage, not who they admire and praise.'

All of which would be fine if Sunny was not inclined to believe rightwing commentators and their sources in the Tory party when they say things that favour his preferred candidates and narrative.  Sunny does not, for instance, think that James Forsyth or his Tory sources are trying to mislead when they claim that CCHQ wants DM to win, because it will be easier to pin Labour's past mistakes on him.  And Sunny also believes that Boris Johnson is speaking from the heart when he heaps praise on Ed Balls' approach to tackling the deficit, rather than attempting to lead Labour up the garden path, as the 'look at who they disparage, not who they admire and praise' maxim would suggest.

Let us leave all this aside, however.  Partly in response to me, and partly in response to Christopher Cook of the FT, Sunny has now put up a post on LibCon explaining his reasons for thinking that the Tories are hoping for a DM win.  Let's examine his reasoning.  For space reasons, I'll concentrate on what he says about economic matters.

Sunny claims that the Tories want DM to win because of his approach to the deficit.  He makes two key points about this, both of which are highly problematic:

1) Sunny says DM's plan is not distinguishable from the Tory plan.  It allegedly involves conceding the argument on the deficit to the Tories, and will allow them to say ‘see, he accepts Labour went too far in allowing the debt to get out of hand‘.  Sunny writes:

Politically – it’s not an easily explainable or different enough plan from the Conservatives. It admits that Labour got it wrong on trying to protect the economy rather than cutting the deficit. This lack of a clear political message over the economy is why Labour lost the last election so badly – people saw Labour admitting they had messed up the economy.

This, however, is full of questionable claims.  First, Sunny consistently talks up the similarity between the Tory plan and DM's plan, and unjustifiably so.  DM's plan is to halve the deficit in the lifetime of a parliament, rather than eliminate it entirely, at a hell-for-leather pace.  DM's plan involves reducing the deficit via a 2:1 mix of cuts to tax rises, as opposed to Osborne's 4:1.  And DM's plan has an escape clause, whereby the pace of deficit reduction can be slowed depending on the economic outlook.  The only way these plans can be mistaken for one another is if the public are repeatedly told, as Sunny does, that they are identical.  Moreover, Sunny thinks that the provision for an escape hatch is 'minutae that will go over the head of most voters and the media.'  Yet, I don't think the public will find it too difficult to grasp the idea that DM would not cut at the expense of the economy, whilst the Tories give every indication that they would.

Second, the DM deficit plan does not, in any way, involve implicitly conceding to the Tories that Labour was wrong to increase the deficit at the time.  I simply do not see why, in general, one would think that any deficit reduction plan implies a judgement about the reasons for having a deficit in the first place.  It is perfectly consistent for David Miliband to argue that it was the right thing to do at the time to allow the deficit to grow, but now something must be done (albeit not the same thing as the Tories demand).

Third, Sunny has no evidence that Labour's proposals on the deficit prior to the election, to which DM still adheres, were responsible for its losing.  There is evidence, however, that the public was sick of the Labour brand, and of Gordon Brown in particular, and would not have stomached five more years of the latter for all the tea in China.  The public voted for the Tories despite being unconvinced by the Tory plans for the deficit.  And there were some indications from polling that the public were more friendly to the Labour line on the deficit going into the election.

The fact is that now there is a potential big opening for a Labour alternative that says that the deficit should be taken seriously, but can be reduced more slowly, safely, and fairly, than the Tories are doing.  The Tories are scared, as the papers constantly tell us, that they will not be able to recover from the anger that the impending cuts will generate.  DM will be able to argue that there is another way, and the government has reason to be fearful of that.

By contrast, it is seriously doubtful, given that polling indicates that the public certainly believe that the deficit needs addressing, and that cuts in some measure are needed, that the Ed Balls approach would be taken seriously at all.  Indeed, if Labour were to make the Ed Balls case now, they would be asked to explain their radical change of heart since the election, when all cabinet members endorsed the Darling strategy.  If Ed Balls or Ed Miliband were leader, they would be asked why they ought to be taken seriously on economic affairs at all, if they are the kind of politician to insist that cuts are needed in May, and to deny it in September.

The bottom line is that Sunny's claim that David Miliband's approach to the deficit concedes too much to the Tories depends on distorting what the latter stands for until it is unrecognisable.  Sunny is highly exercised by the need to create clear blue water between Labour and the Tories on the deficit.  That is fine, but there is already enough water between the Tory plan and the DM plan, and it is far from clear that a policy that is even further removed, such as the Balls proposal, could be argued for credibly at this stage.  It's no good having a more distinct policy that is also widely taken to be a turkey.

2. Sunny claims that DM's plan for the deficit would lead to infighting in Labour with opponents on the left, which the Tories would relish.  That is an odd point, and can be safely ignored, since it can also be made in reverse.  In other words, why is it not a problem with the Balls proposal that it will not be accepted by centrists?  The fact is that whoever is leader, someone's preferred policy on the deficit will not be adopted.  Those people will just have to suck it up, whoever they turn out to be.

Some further, shorter points in response to Sunny:

a) He claims that DM 'hasn’t attacked the Coalition from the right on issues.'  However, like Sunny's misrepresentation of DM's position on the deficit, repeating the mantra that he is just (in effect) another Tory isn't enough to make it true.  Don Paskini recently provided a list of solidly leftwing policies adopted by David Miliband in this campaign:

- an economic strategy which aims to halve unemployment
- a living wage
- doubling the bank levy
- a mansion tax on the wealthiest homeowners to reverse housing benefit cuts
- withdrawing charitable status from private schools to pay for an expansion of free school meals
- defending universal benefits
- marriage equality for same sex couples
- a comprehensive strategy to rid the world of nuclear weapons
- training 1,000 future leaders to campaign in their communities
- building more affordable homes and creating more green jobs as part of an industrial strategy to reduce Britain's dependency on the City of London

On what world does advocating these policies not involve attacking the coalition from the left?

And by the same token, Ed Miliband is hardly immune from the charge of adopting rightwing talking points.  For instance, in an interview with Sunny himself back in July, when asked whether Labour went too far in waging war on benefits claimants, Ed said 'For the most part I don’t think we were too harsh' -an astonishing claim, I'd have thought, for many on the left.

b) Sunny also has an unfortunate tendency of suggesting that supporters of David Miliband, such as Jack Straw and Alan Johnson, speak for his campaign.  Conversely, it is not clear that he is wholly on top of his own chosen candidate's policies.  For example, he says that David Miliband would be hamstrung in building a progressive alliance by his continuing commitment to Trident.  This ignores that Ed Miliband is also committed to keeping Trident.

c) Sunny does not make any attempt to explore in what way Ed Miliband's victory might be a gift to the Tories.  At the very least, then, he doesn't give us a balanced appraisal.  On that score, there is at least some room to fear that the Tories would be able to effectively portray the younger Miliband as the reincarnation of Gordon Brown.  After all, he is from the Brownite wing of the party.  He owes his career, in large measure, to Brown's patronage.  He wrote the manifesto the country rejected at the polls this year, on behalf of Brown.  He is heavily backed by increasinngly assertive unions, again calling to mind Brown, who was with some effectiveness (and however unfairly) portrayed in the rightwing press as in thrall to his 'union paymasters' during the days of the BA strike, etc.  And he shares with Brown the fact that, as Paul Sagar notes, he is not in any way a polished media performer, but instead appears slightly awkward and off-putting.

Note that these last points are not intended to suggest that the Tories are praying for Ed Miliband.  I happen to think it is a futile enterprise trying to second guess their preferences, and I would advise Sunny not to try.

Lib Dems giving mixed signals on gay marriage

Where do the Lib Dems really stand on gay marriage?  Recently, Simon Hughes spoke to this issue in a video interview with Yoosk.  It was then widely reported - e.g. by gay media outlet Pink News - that Hughes had indicated that gay marriage will happen in this parliament.

However, that is a rather optimistic assessment of what Hughes actually said.  Indeed,  Hughes actually dampened expectations that gay marriage would be adopted as a matter of Lib Dem party policy, let alone coalition policy.

Hughes' full answer on gay marriage can be seen here:

Notice that the only concrete step towards gay marriage mentioned by Hughes is a 'consultation' by the coalition government, which had anyway already been previously promised by Lynne Featherstone.  Whether or not gay marriage ever sees the light of day depends, then, on how the consultation is handled by the coalition, and what its outcome is.  Hughes doesn't venture a guess on that - indeed, he says that he doesn't know what the outcome of discussions over gay marriage will be even within the Liberal Democrat party.  So, whilst he has some warm words to say for gay marriage, and speculates that we 'should' be able to get it in this parliament, he is certainly not committing to anything beyond the consultation as yet.

Moreover, Hughes implies that he would rather gay marriage were not adopted as a matter of whipped, Lib Dem policy, but were instead put forward as a mere free conscience vote.  He says:

I think that every Liberal Democrat MP will be free to come to their own decision. I don't think this will be a whipped vote matter, because there are matters of conscience around these issues, and I am keen that we don't say every single item is a matter of party policy.

Now, at the beginning of this year, Nick Clegg announced that he was a supporter of full gay marriage.  So it was a matter of considerable disappointment when the issue was omitted from the Liberal Democrats' 2010 manifesto.  At the time, the explanation for this was that there had not been time to debate gay marriage at the Lib Dems' Federal Conference.  Pink News was told that, eventually, gay marriage would be debated, and would be adopted as a policy commitment.*

Hughes' comments now suggest that he thinks a pro-position on gay marriage will not become a matter of Lib Dem policy at all.  To be sure, that does not mean it will not happen.  And gay marriage could still pass on a free vote, even if Lib Dem MPs were not whipped into supporting it.

Nonetheless, though, the Lib Dem position on gay marriage is a good deal more ambiguous than some reports suggest.  There is certainly no call for Lib Dem Voice to run the details of Hughes' interview beneath the headline: 'Simon Hughes: Coalition Government will legislate to allow gay marriage'.

*A small update: as commenter Jae tells me, gay marriage is now on the agenda for the Lib Dem Federal Conference this autumn (see Jae's own post on it here).  That is positive, but still leaves us with a situation in which (headlines in Pink News and Lib Dem Voice to the contrary notwithstanding) the Lib Dem Deputy Leader has said that, in his opinion, gay marriage will not (and perhaps should not) become a matter of whipped party policy.

Ed Miliband has blown it on gay marriage

It was disappointing when, in his Liberal Conspiracy interview a fortnight ago, Ed Miliband passed up the opportunity to give clear support for marriage equality.

But it is a pretty sad indictment of his candidacy that, when offered the chance to revisit his  earlier position, and come out firmly, if belatedly, in support of gay marriage, in an interview published today in Labour Uncut, he once again failed to do so.  Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Q. (from Jae): Following Ed Balls and Diane Abbott announcing their support for marriage equality, will he retract his comments about there not being enough people calling for it and come out in support of LGBT equality?

A. My position on this is pretty simple, which is that we did a consultation in the run up to the manifesto, and it wasn’t raised with me as an issue. But obviously if it’s something that is felt to be an important issue, I understand absolutely the reasons for that, then it’s something we should definitely look at. And I’m very happy to say that and I completely understand and sympathise with the wish for equality in this area.

Q. So does it matter how many people ask for it?

A. It’s not about how many people but I think if it’s felt to be an issue, as I say it hasn’t been raised with me, but I completely understand the reasons for it, it’s something that we should look at. I think if we were in government we should have a consultation on it, I believe the government is having a consultation on it. I’m very happy for that to happen.

So Ed, who represents himself as a believer in equality, 'understands' the case for gay marriage, yet shies away from committing to it.  His deliberate refusal (for that is what it is, given that he has now been asked about this twice) to be drawn on gay marriage is in stark contrast with the unequivocal endorsements of equality from the other runners (bar his brother).

Contrast Miliband's words with this statement from Ed Balls' campaign team:

[Balls] had an uncle, the youngest of 7 kids, who eventually came out to the family, after many years, very difficult for him.

He was in a long term relationship, but died of cancer a few years ago, before civil partnerships were introduced. (The family is still in touch with his partner).


The uncle was a very religious man, a Christian, and Ed says it was really sad that he didn’t get to have a civil partnership but also, why should he have been denied the chance to have a proper marriage too, especially given his religious faith?


So it’s something he feels quite strongly about on a personal level.

Or this, from Diane Abbott:

I have always supported gay marriage and made that case when civil partnerships were first discussed. Despite what may now be reported, it wasn’t New Labour that first proposed civil partnerships but Ken Livingstone in his first administration. I supported it then, way before New Labour had the bravery to put this issue into legislation.

Or Andy Burnham's impassioned defence:

Gay marriage epitomises my approach - complete equality because civil partnerships can be seen as second-class arrangements.  Marriage is a life-long commitment by two people to each other, which is much more important than any judgement about their sexuality.

As I said in my previous post on the subject, for anyone with egalitarian sympathies, support for gay marriage should be an absolute no-brainer - there simply are no good, secular reasons not to embrace it.

Ed Miliband has now had two opportunities to do so, and blown it.  This is not a positive indication of the instincts and convictions of a man who seeks to lead a political party of the left.

Why not gay marriage, Ed?

At several points in his interview with Sunny Hundal, published on Liberal Conspiracy today, Ed Miliband comes across either as lacking the courage of his leftwing convictions, or as lacking those convictions altogether.  He continues to be heavy on soggy rhetoric (e.g. “We have to be proud of our record, but we must apply our values to a blank sheet of paper”).  And although he wants to position himself as the 'change candidate', who can make a decisive break with the New Labour era, he cannot bring himself to repudiate some of the worst aspects of New Labour's record (on its war on benefit cheats, he says “For the most part I don’t think we were too harsh").  One of the very few clear lines he takes could have the consequence of denying Labour a chance at returning to power (he rules out a coalition with the Lib Dems).

Finally, there is this:

Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership?

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy.

The coalition has promised to 'consult' on gay marriage (with whom?), and now Ed Miliband, bravely,  says that he will also 'listen' to people about it.  He suggests that not enough people are asking for it.  This implies that he is not now listening to the gay activists who are already campaigning on the issue, and also raises the intriguing question of how many people demanding gay marriage would, for Ed Miliband, seem like 'enough' to encourage him to get behind it.

It is difficult to understand why Ed Miliband thinks this issue is not clearcut.   What possible good secular reason could one have to resist implementing full marriage equality? I am at a loss to think of one.  Civil partnership legislation was of course a hugely important step.  But it was just that - a step, not the end goal.  Civil partnerships are to marriage equality what AV is to PR  (assuming you like PR in the first place, of course).  The status quo gives us marriage apartheid, and will continue to be seen as implicitly endorsing the view that gay relationships are inferior until it is changed.  

Religious groups will continue to regard gay marriage as unconscionable, of course.  They can refuse to conduct them, then.  It is not for them to veto marriage equality any more than it is for  (say) the Catholic Church to demand a ban on heterosexual second marriages.   It is often said that marriage is an essentially religious institution.  It is not.  What counts as a legal marriage is decided by the state.  If it were down to religion to decide, we would be allowing men to have multiple prepubescent brides.

True enough, some gay people prefer civil partnerships, e.g. on grounds that they do not have connotations of ownership, as marriage is sometimes seen to do.  But that just suggests, though, that civil partnerships should also be available, to gay and straight couples who want them.  It's important to note that there isn't anything wrong with civil partnerships, just with the inequality.

It is a deep shame that, when presented with such an easy opportunity to support equality, Miliband flunked it.  Not that his rivals have done any better to date, of course.  Labour is currently in the lamentable position of having nobody among the current crop of leadership candidates who openly  and unequivocally supports gay marriage.  Meanwhile, the Tory mayor of London now does.*  If the candidates want to offer genuine change, they could start here.

ADDENDUM: @ConorPope, on Twitter, points me to this post, by Kerry McCarthy, in which she suggests that there may be practical roadblocks to implementing marriage equality.  McCarthy writes:

Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won't have true equality until they are. I've tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn't gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it's more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn't have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.

I don't understand what the difficulty is supposed to be here.  In this country, heterosexual couples can already choose between a civil and religious marriage. the former being conducted in a registry office.  Gay marriage would, in the first instance, extend the availability of civil marriage to gay couples.  Religious marriage could also be allowed in churches that agree to conduct them.  You would not have to win over or secure the consent of religious denominations opposed to gay marriage for any of this.   As I say in the original post, those that oppose gay marriage needn't perform them.

* UPDATE 8th July: Thanks to Patrick, in the comments section, for pointing out that initial reports that Johnson had come out in favour of gay marriage at London Pride may not have been an accurate relection of his position after all.  Pink News reports that, 'Following [Johnson's] remarks at Pride, a City Hall statement made clear he supported civil partnerships, with no mention of marriage.'

According to the Tories, the country has voted for Gordon Brown

Remember this poster?

This was the Tories' effort towards the end of the campaign, when they decided to run against the 'Hung Parliament Party'.  The message?  That a vote for a hung parliament was a vote for five more years of Gordon Brown.

The country has now voted for a hung parliament. Presumably, then, the Tories think voters have opted for five more years of Gordon Brown.  Perhaps someone should ask David Cameron to confirm whether it is indeed, as the poster implies, the view of the Tories that the voters have chosen Brown.

David Cameron's Head on a Stick - behind the scenes

I should have posted this excellent video from Tim Ireland some time ago, but better late than never:

See also Tim's post on the technicalities of making of the video here.

You may or may not be interested to know that I had a small but very fun role in the filming of this video. Tim asked me to lend him a hand one evening in London, which in a nutshell involved followed him around whilst he was in the persona of David Cameron, complete with creepy mask, and filming as he asked members of the public in Soho, Picadilly Circus, and nearby areas to pose with him for his 'campaign video'. Some of the footage we filmed shows up in the video at, e.g., 1.53 mins in, and again at 2.33 or so.

Reactions, as you can imagine, were varied! Some people jumped out of their skins when they saw the mask, others burst out laughing (and others still did both). Some passers-by somehow came to the conclusion that we were making a film for the Conservative Party, and this was the only thing that occasionally made what we were doing a little embarrassing ('Urgh - David Cameron? No thanks!!'). Some who originally turned down requests to be in the video changed their minds and enthusiastically posed with Tim once they had it clarified that the video would be taking the mickey out of Dave, rather than bigging him up.

So I was later told by LGBT Labour's James Asser on Twitter, while filming on Old Compton St we narrowly missed the chance to have Tim in the same place as David Miliband, who was outside Ku Bar launching Labour's International LGBT Manifesto!

Finally, throughout the walkabout one of the things we heard most often, and were most struck by, was the apparently high level of support on the street for the Lib Dems. People shouted 'Nick Clegg for PM!' at us from across the street, and those who declined to be in the video often gave, as their reason, 'No thanks - I'm voting for Nick Clegg!' as they walked on. Of course, Soho is a very lefty place at the best of times. And this also was during the height of Cleggmania - after the first television debate, and before the second. Nevertheless, maybe this will prove to be a good omen for the Lib Dems come polling day...

Update, 07.05.10, 11.10 am: Erm, as the observant among you may now have gleaned, things did not exactly pan out well for Clegg in the end...

These slippery Tory non-denials over Stroud will only fuel further suspicions

UPDATE, 5/05/10, 14.30: On legal advice, a more recent, related post has been deleted.

Meanwhile, Liberal Conspiracy today has further details about the general media inattention to the Stroud story.

ORIGINAL POST:

By now, many people will have read both the original allegations against Tory PPC Philippa Stroud in today's Observer, and her rather curious non-denial denial.  Stroud's statement reads:

I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise.

However, what Stroud here denies in not what The Observer alleges.  The Observer alleges that Stroud either believes or once believed that homosexuality and gender identity issues are caused by demonic possession, and that prayer, by driving out the demons, can 'cure' the possessed person.  And the newspaper further avers that Stroud has herself attempted to cast a demon out of a teenager who was sent to her by evangelical parents:

Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. "Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free," Abi told the Observer.

"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus."

These are allegations that Stroud's statement fails to acknowledge, let alone rebut.

Iain Dale, who often volunteers himself as firefighter for his party when stories about anti-gay Tories begin to smoulder in the press, posts today in defence of Stroud.  What he does, however, is  put words in her mouth.  Dale claims:

Philippa Stroud categorically denies the Observer's implication that she believes homosexuality is an illness or can be cured.

But Stroud's statement does not deny that she believes homosexuality can be cured: Dale has pulled this out of thin air.

Tim Montgomerie also addresses the Stroud story, albeit reluctantly.  He is a close friend of hers, and admits, candidly enough, that his first thought was to try to ignore the allegations against her to death, rather than confront them.  Convinced, however, that the story could not be ignored, he reproduces her statement of non-denial, with emphases added as follows:

I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise.

Montgomerie's choice to embolden 'it is categorically untrue', but not the words that follow immediately after ('that I believe homosexuality to be an illness') makes it appear, to the casual eye, as though Stroud's statement was a far more comprehensive denial of the Observer allegations than in fact it was (since it was not, of course, any kind of denial).

Montgomerie also refers to the Observer piece as 'gutter journalism'.  But he does not adduce any evidence to back up that jab (e.g. evidence to show that the interviewees either do not exist, or were misrepresented by the journalist).  Rather, in effect, he merely asks his readers to accept it as an article of faith that the story is unfounded.  Much as Nadine Dorries also did when, on Twitter, she invited Gaby Hinsliff to accept that 'Philippa Stroud would never, ever lie'.  (Though Nadine may be right about Stroud's truthiness, note.  Because she has yet to deny the specific allegations against her in the Observer, Stroud would not be rendered a liar, even if the story turns out to be true.)

Whether or not there is any truth to The Observer story, the reaction to it from Stroud herself, and from other Tories trying to defend her, has been evasive at best, disingenuous at worst.  Far from helping to bury the story, they may encourage the asking of further awkward questions. 

Tim Minchin's Pope Song - motherf**king brilliant!

For those of you who have yet to see it:



Very NSFW, on grounds of language.

Tim Montgomerie normalises homophobia (again)

As has now been widely reported, the Conservative Party has, uncharacteristically, taken action on homophobia in their ranks by... erm, suspending a Scottish PPC who was contesting a seat that he had absolutely no chance of winning anyway (at the last election Labour won secured 43.9% of the vote, with the Tories trailing on 18.4%).  Compare and contrast the suspension of Philip Lardner with the cases of Chris Grayling and Julian Lewis, a Shadow Cabinet member and Shadow Minister respectively, who are still in jobs, and over whom David Cameron has taken no action.

Iain Dale has written a post saying 'good riddance' to Philip Lardner.  This is an open goal for him, giving him the chance to burnish his credentials as a champion of gay rights without actually having to stand up to his party - after all, the Scottish Tories had already suspended Lardner, so all Dale had to do was applaud their decision.  As I have noted here before, Dale's record on calling out Tory homophobia in cases where the party itself is unkeen to take action has been consistently poor.

Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie, meanwhile, has come out as an apologist for Lardner's homophobia.  Before getting to his assessment of the situation, it's worth noting the comments from Lardner that led to his suspension:

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. 

"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per 'clause 28′/section 2a in Scotland,) was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.

"Why should Christian churches be forced by the government to employ homosexuals as 'ministers' against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the government to betray their mission – would the Equality and Human Rights Commission be fined for refusing a job to Nick Griffin?

"Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so – good manners count too, of course.

"The current 'law' is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values."

Let us leave aside the parts of his comments that have attracted the most attention - that homosexuality is not normal, and that it is "somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong'".  Note instead that Lardner defends Section 28, and advocates its reintroduction.  Note too that he peddles the falsehood that it is possible to teach or promote homosexuality.  And note finally that he stokes up fears about the effects of equality legislation, saying that it forces churches to hire gay clergy, when spiritual positions are exempt.  In a nutshell, Lardner attempts to fight gay equality by lying to people about what it entails.

And Montgomerie's response?  He does not object to any of Lardner's ideas about gay rights, but only to the manner of their presentation:

I see no evidence for hatefulness in Mr Lardner's remarks, even though I disagree with his choice of words. Although he's probably wrong to say "most of the population" share his views, they are shared by many conservative Christians and people of other faiths. His suspension by the Scottish Conservative Party seems a disproportionate response.

But this should not be a surprise, since it is not the first time Montgomerie has attempted to claim that clearly homophobic comments by a Tory are in fact nothing of the sort.  Back in August of last year, Tory MEP Roger Helmer claimed that homophobia does not exist, but is instead a 'thought crime', 'a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions', and 'frightening evidence of the way in which political correctness is threatening our freedom'.  Montgomerie said, on that occasion, that Helmer's comments were 'perfectly reasonable'.

Tory Grant Shapps claims to be 'big supporter' of gay rights, having never voted in favour of gay rights

At 3pm today, C4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy conducted an interview over Twitter with Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister. Shapps, whose previous claim to fame was to have been at the centre of an embarrassing episode involving sock-puppetry, was asked, among other things, about his views on gay rights.  The initial exchange between him and Guru-Murthy went as follows:

KGM: Do you agree with Chris Grayling on B&B owners being able to choose who they admit to their homes?

GS: the law is the law & huge progress has been made over the yrs. I'd never want to turn the clock back.

KGM: 'the law is the law' doesn't sound like a big banging of the drum on gay rights. A bit reluctant on this issue?

GS: spotted follow up on gay rights. Big supporter. Legislation passed prior to being MP. Would definitely voted for civil partnerships

Yet, Shapps can only be accounted a 'big supporter' of gay rights if what that involves is not once voting in favour of gay rights.  Since Grant became a MP in 2005, there have been two key gay rights votes - over the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in March 2007, which outlawed discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in May 2008, which granted lesbian couples access to IVF, by removing the earlier stipulation that treatment should only be provided once doctors had considered the child's 'need' for a father.

Shapps voted against lesbian access to IVF, supporting two separate attempts to insert a new requirement on doctors that they take account of the child's 'need' for a father or a 'male role model'.  And he failed to turn up to vote for non-discrimination in goods and services.  In other words, Shapps failed to support the law that, among other things, prohibits Christian B&B owners from turning away gay couples.  Oddly, he failed to mention this when quizzed about Grayling's comments.

In light of his voting record, Shapps has only a 21% gay-friendliness rating from Stonewall.  (The only reason this score is not lower still is that failure to vote, as opposed to voting against, gets an MP a token mark in Stonewall's calculations, and so Shapps' no-show on the Equality Act counts slightly in his favour).  And yet, in Shapps' own estimation, this is enough to render him a 'big supporter' of gay rights.

When I pointed Shapps' less than impressive record out to Guru-Murthy, he sent this follow-up question:

Grant, @sohopolitico has sent us your voting record on gay rights http://bit.ly/bdVVPW can you explain pls when u have time?

Thus far, Shapps has ignored that question, though he has written other tweets since the interview (including a tweet linking to the interview transcript on the C4 website, which disappointingly does not include Guru-Murthy's follow-up tweet about Shapps' voting record).  I'm not holding my breath that he'll find the time to set the record straight anytime soon...