Why I Hate This Equal Marriage Debate

I support Equal Marriage, I just do. Like everyone who doesn't or does agree with me they feel strongly that what they think is right. It’s a matter of consciousness and a human right. There is no right answer and the only person who can answer the question is yourself. There are some very good reasons not to back gay marriage: you could not support marriage at all, you may be very traditional or deeply religious. However, and quite obviously if you read the previous lines, I don’t personally buy any of these.

What I can’t stand is the debate over this issue. A minority, but a sizeable one, on both sides are attacking each other in a way that is upsetting people and in some casing making lies. I'm going to give a brief synopsis on both sides and why this debate, not the idea or Bill itself, is just so bad.

Some in the campaign against gay marriage have been quite impolite to say the least and very hurtful. Cardinal O’Brien of Scotland likened gay marriage to ‘slavery’ and said that it was ‘grotesque’. Clearly this is rabble rousing rhetoric from the cardinal to try show how wrong  he believes equal marriage is. Cardinal O’Brien clearly, and rightly, has very religious reasons not to back gay marriage and that’s fine. But what is very rude is to use rhetoric like this on an issue and in a way that upsets many people. Even the Bible doesn't use words like this when describing gay people and I think it’s quite insensitive to use them.

There have also been lies spread about how gay marriage will impact on the Church, forcing them to carry out gay marriages. The case of Gas and Dobouis v France was highlighted as a case from the ECHR by the Telegraph to show that equal marriage would be forced on religious institutions. However, this legal case doesn't deal with gay marriage but legal rights of adoption in civil partnerships. The case actually resulted in France winning as the court held the right of the autonomy of France to decide on what extent it allows gay adoption. The Telegraph has every personal right to disagree with gay marriage but it shouldn't seek to lie in order to make people vote against gay marriage on the grounds of religious protection.

I’d like to also cite the problems with the pro gay marriage campaign too. It is wrong on a matter of consciousness to demean other people’s personal views on an issue so sensitive. This is what Ben Howlett had to say to Steve Baker MP when he disagreed with gay marriage:

What an utterly stupid and hurtful comment to make. Steve Baker has every right to disagree, especially considering how pro-liberty he is. Steve Baker has quite clearly outlined religious objections on the grounds that there needs to be greater acceptance in the Church of England. I don’t agree with Steve Baker, I think the Church of England has been given sufficient safeguards, but this gives Ben Howlett no right to say stupid things about votes for women. 

We can’t treat people who disagree with gay marriage as harking back to a Victorian past. My advice is don't demean anyone who opposes gay marriage as some mad fool. Nor can we treat people who disagree with gay marriage as bigots as many who support gay marriage have done. This is putting your system of values on to someone else, more dictatorship than liberalism I think. Unlike Gordon Brown, I can’t actually think of a situation when someone can be at all bigoted on a matter of consciousness.

So there you have it. A brief synopsis on both sides of why this debate has plunged into distaste and is quite frankly repulsive. I support the Bill and equal marriage but my advice to any passing MP who should read this blog, if I’m lucky enough to have an MP read it at all, is to vote with your heart not on silly arguments or fear of being called a bigot.

Problems down tut Eastleigh

Trouble is ahead for the Coalition, which is obvious considering both parties are about to go to war over a small part of Hampshire.

The Liberal Democrats have been spoiling to attack the Conservatives for some time. To be fair this could be said the other way but at least Conservative Ministers are not briefing their Conservative colleagues to oppose the 'wicked Liberals' on almost everything. The air will be most foul. The Liberals feel aggrieved for not getting Lords Reform, although there seems to be some agreement on flaws in the legislation in the first place. Also many Lib Dems are not happy with the welfare reforms the Conservatives want, this is the line I think they will use on the campaign in Eastleigh ‘vote for us or the wicked Tories will get in’. The Conservatives are equally not happy with the Liberals deciding the new boundary changes are not fair all of a sudden. Nor do they like the seemingly timid Conservatism that the coalition government is pursuing in most cases (although I would also point to DC on that one for some blame).

Both parties are obviously going to vent their furies on each other and it will be unrelenting. It will be even worse because the Conservatives will throw everything into this by-election. For some this is a test of not only recent benefit cuts and the EU referendum pledge but of David Cameron’s leadership. If Cameron loses here it will be a huge loss in confidence in the party and him, especially considering that Eastleigh used to be a Tory safe seat. I’d watch your back Mr Cameron.

Personally I think this is a nail in the coffin for the Coalition, regardless who wins. The fighting will be very tense and will continue on after the by-election. However, as Cameron keeps saying the coalition is united on economic policy. But again, looking how the Lib Dems are now starting to refuse to cut areas, particularly on benefits, I doubt this will last much longer either.

He’s not the Messiah; he’s a very naughty boy!

Well as we all expected Chris Huhne is guilty of perverting the court of justice. Today he changed his plea in court and will probably be sentenced shortly for an offence that he is 90% likely to go to jail for. Chris Huhne, as you might remember, was the man once praised and virtually worshipped by the Liberal Democrats. He was almost their leader and took on the problems of fossil fuel energy so that we have no power for the next decade or so. Now his career is in ruins, his MP role is untenable. This means really only one thing. A by-election.

Here are the results from Eastleigh at the General Election 2010.

Party	Candidate	Votes	%	+/- %
Lib Dems	Chris Huhne	24,966	46.5	+8.2
Conservative	Maria Hutchings	21,102	39.3	+2.1
Labour	Leo Barraclough	5,153	9.6	−11.5
UKIP	Ray Finch	1,933	3.6	+0.2
English Democrats	Tony Pewsey	249	0.5	N/A
National Liberal Party- Third Way	Keith Low	93	0.2	N/A
Majority		3,864	7.2
Turnout		53,650	69.3	+4.9
Lib Dem hold		swing	3

This is a winnable Conservative Seat. The Lib Dems will lose many votes because they are very unpopular, only the core party will support them (and at the recent by-elections this wasn't enough to win back a deposit). That being said there will be a larger core Lib Dem vote, as they currently hold the seat, so I wouldn't expect them to receive less than 20% of the vote (but who knows). Some of the previous Lib Dem voters will not turn out at all. Many of them however will turn to Labour but will it be enough? Labour’s core vote in Eastleigh is at most 26% or 14,000 votes, this is the result from 1997 which the Labour party in no way could match today. They are likely to double the % of the vote they got in 2010 and will be pushing for a slim win.

The Conservatives at this point will not be in as good a position as 2010. Many voters will not turn out and some will vote UKIP. But I think due to the EU announcement and a slight increase in Conservative popularity due to the recent benefits votes and EU referendum I do not see the Conservatives doing so badly that the Lib Dems or even Labour takes the seat.

To combat UKIP there would be a strong argument of a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. This will not work for some people, UKIP’s vote share I predict will double at least. I believe though that we have a good chance of winning this seat but we must be very active in this area in order to win it. I think I’ll explore later what fighting a by-election in Eastleigh would mean for the Coalition in another Blog Post soon, because it’s going to be bloody. 

Gay Marriage saving the economy

A lot of Conservative MPs have recently been saying that the government should focus on legislation for the economy instead of gay marriage. Have they gone mad!

This isn’t really a point of whether you agree with equal marriage or not, but why would you, especially if you’re a Tory MP, want the government to pass more laws on the economy. The Government isn’t going to solve this crisis by another act of parliament, it’s going to solve it by cutting spend and decreasing taxes in the Budget.

Its business (big but mostly small) that’s going to grow the economy. When Parliament debates the economy it means more public spending, it means more wasted tax payer money on projects like HS2. It also means more time for the Lib Dems and Labour to make amendments to Bills that would mean more borrowing.

Parliament needs to pass Acts that reduce welfare spending, gives permission to get fracking going and improve education. Not fool the public into thinking the economy will be solved because MPs are doing something about it, because government is virtually never the answer.

I’m very surprised that any Conservative MP is asking for the expansion of government in the economy, especially as the people doing so are the more right wing elements. At first sound of it the public will agree with them but I think it should be said loud and clear that replacing the Bill for equal marriage with a Bill to solve the economy will help only to make it worse. If anything the gay marriage Bill is a boost to the economy because the government isn't messing around with people’s lives and money. 

Weekly Poll Lowdown

Well we decided to run the EU referendum 4 years early and see how you would vote if the poll was next week. 16 of you voted and these are the results.

Stay in the EU	12 (75%)
Leave the EU	4 (25%)

How very wrong most of you are. We must unfortunately leave the EU.

I bet no one who voted to stay in, unless your name is R Thurscargill, actually thinks the EU is the best it could be. I personally would like to stay in the EU because it is in theory a Single Market with trade agreements in Europe. However the EU is declining and find it very difficult to trade with anyone else because we have no control over our trade policy. Trade is so important. If we are actually going to be great in the World we must be allowed to trade with everyone. Otherwise the UK will just be a part of managed decline which is not good, we’d move backwards not forwards.

Leaving the EU is also not to say we will not have free trade agreements with Europe. Remember they trade with us too, they are as dependant on us as we are to them if not more so. Outside the EU we will actually have a better relationship. We’d have complete freedom ourselves on trade but still trade in the union. Outside the EU we will actually grow into a great country, now we’re slowly getting worse. 

I've done a lot on the EU recently so, unless its in the news again, I won't mention it for a while. Make sure you vote in the new poll.

Breaking News from the Attorney General

Yesterday the Attorney General came to Nottingham University. He gave a speech on his role and what the big issues of the time were. He also answered several questions at the end of this. Mr Grieve said he would be fully open and answer any searching questions and he did. #thingselliottsays can reveal two new stories about Dominic Grieve on how he is going to vote on the prisoners voting bill (although his stance has been inferred before in the Independent) and which way he will vote in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The Attorney General has obviously had a lot to do with these topics as they are big legal issues.

Mr Grieve was very clear that the UK should stick to its treaty obligation and introduce votes for prisoners, but this should be to a minimal in his position as he does not agree with prisoners having the right to vote. He then went on to say that he will be voting for prisoners to have this right if they are locked up for 6 months or less if the proposed bill after scrutiny is not re-drafted. Mr Grieve said that ‘the ECHR is a treaty and it binds us so we must observe what the court says. We have in Britain a tradition of observing our treaties and by not doing so would cause international damage to our reputation. Other countries will think what rules will we break next’. The Attorney General believes that ‘this is such a small issue and would jeopardise our international standing. We should pull out of the treaty if we strongly wish to make it an issue but no one is suggesting that’.  He then followed this by stating that we don’t have a blanket ban on prisoners voting as those on remand, not sentenced and those guilty of contempt of court can vote.

The Attorney General also revealed he would abstain in the vote in the new proposed Marriage Equality Bill. Dominic Grieve wished to call gay marriage civil union rather than civil marriage to try placate those who take issue with the Bill. Mr Grieve from the talk that he gave seems very involved with his constituency despite being hectically working in his non-cabinet but attending cabinet role. It may be that he is very aware of disquiet amongst all local associations and thus this is why he has chosen to not vote. More specifically Dominic Grieve will be voting for the Bill at its first stage  but will not be doing so at the 2^nd stage

Overall Dominic Grieve gave an excellent talk and even staying around to speak to us personally about anything. I personally find him open and not at all smarmy. And would like to thank him for his speech.

#thingsemmamcclarkinsays

#thingselliottsays spoke to Emma McClarkin MEP, this is what she had to say. The video is from the EU museum and is probably less anti-EU than Emma McClarkin would like to show.

Q: Is the timing of the proposed referendum wise considering some businesses are worrying about the uncertainty before 2017?
A: It is never the right time considering that Britain has hesitated for so long on what sort of relationship it wants with the EU. Now is the right time in my opinion because the EU is in crisis and their answer to end it is greater integration. Luckily we are outside the Euro so businesses see us as a safe haven. When the referendum was announced the FTSE went up, the CBI also backs the Conservatives policy for the British people to have a say. We, unlike Europe, are still competitive despite our many failings because of our strategic position near the continent making us ideal for international trade.

Q: Why are the Commission the only group able to initiate legislation?
A: I hate this right and the way it is named. This is certainly wrong. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. We are only allowed to tinker with legislation in the EU which is totally wrong. We must accept all the proposed Commissioners that the Commission itself thinks should run the union as they are elected jointly. This often means that inefficient and incompetent people are appointed, although we did manage to stop a Bulgarian lady who had explicit links to the MAFIA. The fact is that the Commissioners are in their ivory towers protecting their own jobs. The EU exists to fund several thousand people’s extravagant lives and they do not care what they do for it to happen.

Q: How do you think David Cameron will renegotiate with the EU?
A: This will be the hardest job in the world. Cameron must choose the areas he wishes to reform carefully. It would be best for him to ask Barroso why we should remain in the EU, because despite the Commission trying to show Britain as a problem child they need our money to exist?

Q: Has the EU moved from a trading zone to a protectionist racket?
A: The Commission keeps sending out directives made legitimate by saying these are necessary to complete the single market. I ask why they haven’t done this already. The Commission would rather focus on politically based discussion than discuss trade. It seems they do not want external trade at all. The New Zealand ambassador asked me whether the UK and his own country could reduce their trade barriers and was amazed to discover that we have no control and that any negotiation takes years, if at all happening. It is amazing that they trade more with South East Asia than England considering our very close links.