Equal marriage - what's not to like?

Whilst I try to have a thought-through opinion on many issues, I always do my best to understand the arguments and thought-process of those with whom I disagree.

In this regard, I am completely flummoxed on the issue of equal marriage. Try as I might, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose the extension of the institution of marriage, by general consent a ‘good thing’, to those who wish, freely and willingly, to enter into it. Perhaps you can help me. As I understand it, the main arguments put forward are these…

Marriage has always been between men and women. Equal Marriage devalues the concept of marriage

The first part is, of course, factually accurate.  But lawful sex was defined as being between a man and a woman until the law changed in the UK in 1967. Marital rape was lawful in England and Wales until as recently as 1992, when it was recognised by the House of Lords. Civil Partnership was unheard of until it was created in 2004. My point is that the fact that something ‘has always been’ or ‘has never been’ is not an argument against change.

Civil marriage is a creation of the state (see the Marriage Act 1949). It can therefore be changed by the state through the democratically elected representatives of the people. That’s how it works. Indeed the rules surrounding civil marriage have changed considerably, notably in the licensing of a wide range of establishments for the conduct of marriages.

I really don’t understand how extending marriage to same sex couples in any way devalues marriage as an institution or has any impact on those of us in heterosexual marriages.

Marriage is for procreation and raising children

Of course, many marriages are blessed with children, but many are not either by choice or for other reasons. Are childless couples any less married? Of course not. Some are very happy about their situation, some not, and some choose to adopt.

So what’s the difference between a heterosexual couple adopting children, or choosing to remain childless and a gay couple doing the same thing? I genuinely don’t see it.

The legislation is flawed, so it isn’t equal

The argument here is that because the new legislation doesn’t contain the concept of consummation or provide for divorce by reason of adultery, it is fundamentally flawed. Stonewall points out that 98% of divorces are actually on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and that the definition of consummation can be developed through case law, as indeed it has been in the case of heterosexual marriage (W v W, 1967).

It’s not fair because straight couples can’t have a Civil Partnership

In my response to the consultation exercise, I argued that Civil Partnerships should be abolished, so that everyone had the same option of a civil or religious marriage. That didn’t happen, but I can’t see that that anomaly is of any great significance, and certainly not a reason to reject equal marriage.

Registrars and teachers who don’t agree with equal marriage will be sacked

The argument is that Registrars who disagree with equal marriage could be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies, and that teachers could be required to teach that equal marriage is acceptable, even if they believe that it isn’t.

I’m afraid I take an unsympathetic line on this. Registrars are employed to perform a range of ceremonies according to the laws of the country. It is not a matter of personal conscience. This has recently been confirmed by the European Court, which rejected the claim that the human rights of a Registrar had been infringed when he was required to be willing to register a Civil Partnership.

In the case of teachers, they are required to teach about the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. If children ask for their opinion, they are entitled to give it, but in the context that this is what parliament has agreed and this is the law. Some teachers no doubt believe in creationism, but are required to teach children about evolution.

Creating law according to the wishes of those who would be required to implement it would be the clearest possible example of the tail wagging the dog.

The Churches are opposed to Equal Marriage

It would be truer to say that some – probably most – churches are opposed. Others have made it clear that they welcome the change and wish to offer marriage to all. And that’s fine, it’s up to them. The legislation makes it clear that no religious institution will be compelled to carry out same sex marriages. Indeed in the case of the Church of England and Church in Wales it will be unlawful for them to do so. I understand that this could be changed without further primary legislation if at some future date the Church changes its stance.

So there you are. The Bill will pass through Parliament despite the opposition of a very vocal minority. In 20 years time, I wonder how many of those who vote against it will look back on this day with pride or will they realise, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were on the wrong side of history.

Police and Crime Commissioners - a bad idea, but vote anyway

Next week, we will be asked to go to the polls to elect 41 new Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Optimistic commentators are predicting a turnout of 20%, or even less.

Until the last few days, there has been little or no publicity given to these new jobs, so I thought I’d share my thoughts about why I think it’s a very bad idea, but why I still think we should all vote.

A deeply flawed concept…

On the face of it, it’s an attractive idea to abolish ‘bureaucratic’ police committees and replace them with one person who is directly accountable to the electorate. However, there are several reasons why this is not the case.

The current system is more democratic. Police Authorities (in my case the Greater Manchester Police Authority) is made up from councillors drawn from across the area and representing all political parties. The interests of different areas (e.g. Oldham and Manchester) are therefore represented. In future a single person, the PCC, will have the powers currently vested in those committees and will be expected to represent the views of the entire police force area, however diverse that might be. This is a retrograde step.

The PCCs will be politicians, whatever they say to the contrary. There has been much comment on the lack of high calibre candidates for these roles. The Lib-Dems, for example, are only fielding 24 candidates, and a quick glance down the lists of those standing reveals a large number of has-been and never-quite-were politicians. Some candidates are ex cops, or former army officers, who will no doubt say they are apolitical, but that’s rubbish. Once someone stands for election, and is put in charge of a multi-million pound budget, they are by definition politicians, so let’s not kid ourselves.

We are told that the PCCs will only concern themselves with strategy and will stay away from operational issues. Now, I’ve nothing against politicians per se, but I worked closely with them for nearly all of my working life, and I never met one who wasn’t primarily motivated by keeping the position they held and getting re-elected. There is no way that these politicians will not seek to influence strategy, budget priorities and operations in ways that enhance their popularity and re-electability. That will happen, it’s just a fact of political life. I’m not saying they will do anything improper, of course, but look at national and local  politicians and try to find one that doesn’t seek to benefit the people who vote for them. [I’m excluding from this argument the Lib Dem’s disgraceful volte-face on tuition fees which has alienated the entire student vote.]

The 192 candidates are not representative. I don’t have ethnicity figures, but 82% are male according to the ACPO website. I’d be willing to bet that very few are from minority ethnic communities. Given that these ‘stale, male and pale’ (according to Vera Baird QC, a Labour candidate)  PCCs will have the power to appoint Chief Constables and other very senior ranks, can we imagine that those appointments will improve diversity at the top of police forces? Can we imagine either that PCCs will appoint candidates who they know are going to disagree with them and hold very different views? I, for one, don’t want to see a series of yes-men, or women, appointed to run police forces.

But Vote Anyway…

So if PCCs are such a bad idea – and as I hope I’ve made it clear I think it is – why should you bother to vote? I’ve struggled with this question myself, and I think there are two main reasons.

Firstly, as a matter of principle I believe tha taking part in any election is a civic duty, part of the responsibilities we have as members of a democratic society.

Secondly, whether we vote or not, someone will get elected. Although the BNP decided at the last minute to boycott the elections, UKIP is fielding a significant number of candidates, including in Greater Manchester, and there are several ‘English Democrat’ candidates. I don’t know anything about the independents. The fewer people that vote, the greater the chances that an extremist candidate will be elected, and I don’t think anyone sensible would want that.

So there you are. A deeply flawed concept, destined, I believe, to fail. But it’s going to happen, so please take the trouble to vote.

Don't believe everything you read!

I read in The Times today that this week the cost of living hit its lowest level for two years.

A little later, I saw a TV advert saying that everything in a store was ‘up to half price’.

And when the Mail runs one of its almost daily health scare stories, it gets hysterical about the risks of an illness being ‘increased by 20%!!!’

Now, I only just scraped a pass at ‘O’ level maths (although, to be fair, according to Michael Gove that probably means I’d be A* at GCSE (I wouldn’t)) but I’d like to look at little more carefully at those statements.

Firstly, the level of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (the truncated index the Government uses to depress benefit and pension increases) stood at 2.2%, the lowest for two years. So far from the cost of living being at its lowest, it’s at its highest, just going up more slowly.

Secondly, when the store says ‘up to half price’ it doesn’t mean, as it’s saying, that half price is the most you’ll pay; it means, of course, just the opposite, that you’ll get up to half the price off.

My final example isn’t a lie, but is open to easy misinterpretation. A 20% in anything sounds like a lot, but if your chances of getting a particular illness are, say, 1 in 1000, this increase means your chances have gone up to 1.2 in 1000. Hardly a cause for mass panic

Now all of this isn’t just me being my usual picky, pedantic self. Having the time to watch and listen to a lot of news, I encounter almost daily statements that are misleading or inaccurate, misquotes, factual errors and so on.

Whether you think these are just genuine mistakes, made in the haste of having to meet the insatiable demand of 24 hour news reporting, or put a more sinister interpretation of deliberate misinformation, it is clear that we all need to be on our toes to scrutinise and check what we are told.

Now you, dear reader, know this and do it already. But we live in a society where people admit to their lack of numeracy almost as a badge of honour. Schools would do young people a great service by teaching them how to use the numerical skills they are gaining to question everything they hear or read to check that whether deliberately or accidentally, they are not having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Supporting the strivers? Are you having a giraffe?

I have complained here before about bad language, but it has to be said that this government are the biggest load of hypocritical, lying, arrogant s***s ever to have held power in this country. Bar none - even Thatcher!

Today, Cameron said his party supports aspiration, the strivers. 

And yet this is the party that will turn out tens of thousands of young people with no qualifications and no hope when the E-Bacc replaces GCSEs. That took away the hope of thousands of children who worked hard to achieve their GCSE Grade C and then saw it stolen from them.

This is the government that sacked thousands of hard-working disabled people when they closed Remploy.

This is the shower that will cap housing benefit for thousands of hard-working families on low pay so that they will be forced to move away from family, friends and schools.

This is the coalition - yes, Lib Dems, you're just as bad - that wants you to be able to 'sell' your employment rights for the promise of some potentially worthless shares, wants your employer to be able to sack you for no reason at all in the first 2 years of your employment.

Is this how aspiration and striving are to be rewarded? Those earning £1m a year have aspirations - to pay less tax, and that of course has been rewarded by a £40k a year tax cut - that's about 50% MORE than the average national wage.

All in it together? The only thing this government is in is an elite of the wealthy and powerful, who remain untouched by the vicious and vindictive attacks on the rest of the country.

How much for cash?

If your plumber, gardener or motor mechanic offers you a cheaper price for cash, and you accept, you are probably going to be complicit in some sort of tax evasion, be it income tax or VAT. It is hard to argue with the proposition that this is morally, if not legally, reprehensible since it means that the tradesperson concerned is not paying their full and fair contribution to society.

I get that, of course. However, I would be more inclined to take lessons in morality from Government Minister David Gaulke were it not for the following:

Large corporations, and super-rich individuals, pay wealthy accountants and lawyers to ensure that they  do not pay their full and fair contribution. Indeed, Gaulke used to be just such a lawyer, and his wife still is. Nothing unlawful, of course, but exploiting every possible loophole. Whilst the Government makes idle threats to tackle this 'morally repugnant' conduct, nothing is actually done about it. It is believed that Vodafone were 'let off' as much as £8bn tax in a sweetheart deal and Tory funder Lord Ashcroft lived as a 'non-dom' to avoid British tax for 10 years as a Peer of the Realm before finally giving up that status in 2010.

Government outrage seems to be selective. While David Cameron was quick to name and shame comedian Jimmy Carr, not known to be his greatest fan, he seemed less interest in discussing the tax affairs of a high number of Conservative supporters.

The Con-Dems have also demonstrate a selective approach when it comes to what is morally acceptable. Closing down Remploy, for example, and throwing some 1500 people with severe disabilities out of work is OK. Giving millionaires a tax break while slashing benefits to those most in need is fine.

As the poor get poorer, it isn't surprising that offered the opportunity of a small discount in return for paying cash people are going to think 'why not'?

And on a practical point, have you tried paying your window cleaner by credit card recently? With the withdrawal of the cheque guarantee card last year, and the planned phasing out of cheques in years to come, just how are small bills to be paid if not with cash?

I do like a good biblical quotation, and there is one here that seems to fit the bill perfectly:


How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye. (Luke 6:42)

The Right To Vote For Prisoners

David Cameron says that the thought of prisoners having the vote makes him feel ‘physically ill’.

I could suggest any number of issues that should have priority for the Prime Minister’s nausea. Just for starters:

• Vital benefits taken from disabled people, the chronically ill and their families;
  
• Job losses in key front line professions such as social workers, nurses and police officers;
  
• Massive hand-outs to the rich through cuts to the top rate of tax;
  
• Horrific executions in Syria while the international community stands by and expels a few diplomats.

I could go on. My point is that of all the horrendous issues facing this country and the world, the question of whether people in prison should have the right to do what less than 40% of the rest of the population can be bothered to do is one that should cause him the least loss of sleep.

Britain imprisons a lot of its people – 151 per 100,000. Only Spain in Western Europe incarcerates more (320 per 100,000), although we are nowhere the world-leading position of the USA, which locks up a staggering 750 per 100,000. Iceland only locks up 55 per 100,000.  A recent report said 70% of prisoners suffered from two or more mental illnesses and many, particularly women, are in prison for relatively minor offences.

We send people to prison to punish them, protect society and hopefully to secure some sort of rehabilitation, although resources are so tightly stretched that this latter is taking a back seat. Which one of those objectives is served by denying prisoners a say in who runs society? Surely trying engage offenders in the democratic process, helping to them see some of the causes of their situation and the impact of their crimes is an essential part of turning their lives around?

Opposition to this European Court ruling on the part of the Government – aided and abetted by Labour – is much more about populist ‘we won’t be told what to do by Europe’ bravado.

In stark contrast, three members of the House of Lords – Peers of the Realm – who recently served prison sentences for stealing public money have, upon release, retained their peerages and right to vote in Parliament on the laws of this nation.

Does that make you feel sick Mr Cameron?

A roof over your head - but where?

I was moved this morning listening to a recently widowed single mum, who lives in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Out of the blue, she received a letter from the Council telling her that they were offering her accommodation which met her needs, was a reasonable offer, and that if she refused this offer the Council would consider that it had discharged its responsibility to house her. In other words, take this or you're on your own.

Now you might think that this isn't unusual, and not unreasonable. The problem for this woman, however, was that the accommodation was in Walsall. That's 130 miles from where she lives, where her child goes to school, where her friends and family are. She didn't sound sure where Walsall was, thought she'd been to Birmingham twice in her life, and had no connections there at all. Many similar cases have been reported in the past couple of days. Officially, the reason given is the lack of affordable rented housing in London. This lady's suspicion - and she isn't alone - is that people like her, who are perceived as a problem, are being shipped out of London to clear the way for gentrification developments, big profits and high rents. Heaven knows I don't often quote Boris Johnson, but yesterday he described this as "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the poor in London. 

Just a bit of context. Councils are not under an obligation to find a home for everyone who wants one. They have a duty to accommodate people who are homeless, but only then if they are not 'intentionally homeless' (and this is open to a lot of interpretation), have a child or are vulnerable, and have a connection to the area served by that council. In the 'old days' this duty was discharged by putting families in what we used to call Council Houses. Now, it is by nominating to 'social housing' owned by housing associations or ALMOs (arm's length management organisations), or by putting them into privately owned rented accommodation, with rents paid to landlords through Housing Benefit.

So what has happened that has led to Waltham Forest, and other London councils, forcing people to move to parts 'as far flung' as they said on the BBC as Walsall, Stoke on Trent and Luton?

Since 1980, some 2 MILLION council homes have been taken out of the social housing market by being sold to tenants, at a significant discount. Prime Minister Thatcher calculated, probably correctly, that home owners are more likely to vote Conservative than tenants, and downsizing the housing stock fitted with her view that 'there is no such thing as society'. In Thatcher's Britain, if people were in need of a home the market would provide them with one. David Cameron recently announced a new impetus for the sale of social housing stock to tenants, with discounts of as much as £75,000 on offer. Presumably for the same reasons.

Having forced councils to sell homes, successive governments then prevented them from spending the money generated on building new homes. While millions of pounds sat in banks, and construction jobs were sorely needed, governments took no action.

This Government has capped the amount of Housing Benefit to be paid at £21,000 a year. A good populist policy - they get how much??? - but it ignores the fact that many people who receive Housing Benefit are the very same 'hard working families' that this Government claims to value so highly. It also ignore the actual cost of housing in the capital. Government Minister Grant Shapps claimed yesterday that rents are going down, but no-one else seems to think so.

The demand for homes to rent is rising and will continue to do so. My son and his girlfriend live in London. Both have secure jobs as teachers, and are reasonably well paid. They cannot see a time when they would ever be able to buy property in London, and young couples like them fuel the demand for rented homes. The forthcoming Olympic Games, in line with the Law of Unintended Consequences, are creating opportunities for profiteering for landlords, and stories are emerging of tenants being evicted so that landlords can cash in on short term lets over the Summer.

So what's the answer? There is obviously not a simple answer, or it would have been found. But it is clear to me that there needs to be a much stronger focus on the issue of affordable housing, not just in London but across the country. There needs to an ambitious programme of new build, creating homes and jobs. There needs to be an immediate halt to the sale of social housing. Benefit capping needs to be revisited. Private sector rent controls need to be considered. Creative options such are shared ownership need to be encouraged.

We have grown accustomed in this country to our children being better off than we are ourselves. Affordable housing is a key element in determining our standard of living and that seems to be increasingly out of their grasp. Something must be done, and soon!