Civil Servants in Lack of Political Nous Shock

Who would have thunk it?  The British Civil Service do not - so the Daily Mail suggested this week - have much by the way of political nous.  They do however have an ability to examine issues and reach conclusions based on evidence rather than the rip tides of media presentation and response.

The Mail reported on Friday that as part of an attempt to reduce state involvement in individuals lives (is this linked to the Your Freedom project launched back in 2010 which didn't seem to deliver?) civil servants had suggested the lowering of the age of consent to 14, not in response to a headline, but in response to detailed consideration of evidence and time-consuming analysis.  Politicians on the other hand have different agendas, and in the wake of the Savile scandal, it's not the best of timing for such a proposal.  Consequently, the Government can appear the voice of common sense by kicking the proposal into the long grass.  I think the proposal (as described in the Mail) has merit but even I wouldn't have suggested it at the moment.  Indeed, I am rather grateful that Jimmy Savile did not find the cure for cancer in his dying days, as it would surely now be blasphemy to want to use it.  Toxic doesn't come close (see the rather wonderful Martin Rowson cartoon from the Guardian today).

However, discussion about some modification of the law relating to nudity (with a view to creating a more 'enlightened' law) appear to still be on the cards.  Promising stuff, and one to watch (as it were).

The broader question is whether these reforms will lead to a Bill which seeks to re-orinetate some sexual freedoms and revises some areas of law which are not currently working.  The Lib Dems are apparently leading on these proposals so we shall have to see.

Who are you calling a Bigot?

Nick Clegg has a remarkable habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  It takes some doing to perform this trick with the consistency that has marked his increasingly gloomy years in government.

His latest moment comes today as part of the bigot-row (we can't call it bigot-gate as that nice Mr Brown bagged that title when he launched a verbal tirade about a Rochdale pensioner).

It seems Clegg was due to give a speech this evening in which he referred to those opposed to same-sex marriage as 'bigots'.  A draft of the speech was released to the media (as usual) but then the text was changed, removing references to 'bigot'.  This gives Clegg the impression of being gutless once again, dodging calling out those who many would regard as bigots.

On this occasion, those critics seem to have called this wrong.  I think Clegg has shown remarkable guts on this.  We presumably have yet another almighty cock-up.  A draft was produced and then sent out - presumably prematurely.  Clegg then had a choice - recall the speech and make a change, thus looking weak, or running with a speech that he didn't want to give, thus looking weak privately but the public wouldn't know.  However, in doing so, he risks upsetting many, and increasing the chance of defeat - and a defeat wouldn't make him look weak, it would demonstrate that he is weak.

So, Clegg made the strategically sensible decision of appearing weak, rather than proving to be weak.

In the short-term it fuels bad headlines but he made the right call.  The next call is to find out why a speech was released which did not use appropriate language - this is about effective government and whilst many words can be used to describe the Coalition, effective isn't one of them.

I realise - and my twitter timeline certainly reflected this earlier - that there are many who will think the term bigot is entirely appropriate, but it's a term that denotes not only narrow views, but an intolerance of other views.  Whilst this is true of some who oppose same-sex marriage, it is not true of all.  Some LGBTQ activists are opposed or question same-sex marriage but they would not describe themselves as intolerant, they just take issue with the institution.   So too, many on the right and those who identify as religious would not regard themselves as intolerant but they would have difficulty reconciling the institution of marriage as a religious concept with the civil union of a same-sex couple.

In seeking to drive through a policy such as same-sex marriage, it's important not to annoy the opposition so much that they feel stirred into fierce action.  You want mild gentle resistance which can ultimately be overcome.  Going around calling everyone bigots is a sure fire way of raising the stakes, and goading the opposition into feeling they have to make this a major battle.  A good sound-bite in the short-term would have been bad politics in the long-term.

Of course, by retracting the comments in this way, he does show the opposition that he doesn't want to annoy them, which may mean they (they being predominantly Tory back-benchers in this context) may feel they can extract some concessions from the Coalition government on other issues such as taxation and regulation.  Thus, the government not only once again looks weak, but is.

However, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.  Clegg looked an idiot today and undoubtedly took yet another hit, but for once I see a man fighting a real political battle rather than a war of soundbites.  It's just a shame they have to make so many clumsy mistakes in the process.

Gay Blood Ban to be Further Repealed?

Interesting piece on Pink News this evening reporting on a vote at the Liberal Democrat Conference, taking the recent gay blood ban repeal further.  Pink News reports that earlier this month, ministers announced that the lifetime ban would be scrapped and gay and bisexual men would be permitted to donate blood if they abstain from sex for 12 months.  According to Pink News, members at the party’s conference in Birmingham agreed that the new 12-month deferral period is “a ban by any other name”.

Read the full story here.

Same-Sex Marriage

I wrote Friday evening on the rumours of a same-sex marriage announcement.  As became public a short time after my post, the rumours were confirmed.  Of sorts.  The eventual announcement came in Lynne Featherstone's speech on Saturday at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham.  Featherstone is Equalities Minister, and one of the few 'left' Liberals in government.  Her speech can be read in full here, and as you'll see, gay rights came in a short section at the end of her speech.  If you were to believe some of the media coverage (based on the preemptive leak, rather than the actual statement), you would think her announcement was to reveal that a new same-sex marriage bill would be imminently introduced, passed, and address current equality concerns.  In reality, it won't be imminently introduced, it probably will be passed, but it won't address current equality concerns.

At the end of her speech, Featherstone remarked:

'And while on my travels as a Champion for Women’s Rights, I am and will be a Champion for Gay Rights too.
 

I will be raising the issue with Governments all over the world and will continue to push everyone, from allies to adversaries, to recognise what we know is true: 

That Gay Rights are Human Rights. No excuses, no exceptions, no compromises. 

But, conference, as with the treatment of women, Britain must not get complacent. 

We are a world leader for gay rights, but as this conference made clear last year with your call for equal marriage, there is still more that we must do. 

That is why I am delighted to announce today that in March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage for same sex couples. 

And this would allow us to make any legislative changes necessary by the end of this Parliament. 

Civil partnerships were a welcome first step – but as our constitution states, this party rejects prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. 

And I believe that to deny one group of people the same opportunities offered to another is not only discrimination, but is not fair.'

Curiously, the announcement fell rather flat among the blogging and tweeting liberal types (i.e. folks like me) who far from praising the move, were critical of the move.

The first wave of criticism is focused upon the lack of action - that this is a consultation rather than a an announcement of legislation.  I have some sympathy with this view but the coalition has been rather useless when it comes to rushing through ill-thought through legislation (e.g NHS reforms and privatised forests - remember that?) so taking time to get this right, is a welcome shift.  That said, the Government could have announced a Green Paper this Autumn with a White Paper next Spring and legislation introduced in Autumn 2012.  That would at least give the feel of this moving forward.

However, the second criticism - that this is merely about creating same-sex marriage and NOT extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples, suggests the government has pretty firm ideas about what will and won't be involved.  In other words, they must be at the White Paper stage now in their thinking.  They know broadly speaking what the options are, and what they've ruled out.  They could therefore get on with this now rather than wait.

However, I think the timetable for their reform - a 'consultation' (no reference to whether a Green or White paper)  next Spring provides an opportunity for lobbyists to pressure the government into a re-think.  This is an opportunity to take a serious look at civil partnerships, same-sex marriage and relationship recognition in a holisitc way.  The Liberal Democrats should be driving this issue and not merely accepting what David Cameron - the Conservative Party leader and PM - has said he would do anyway - presumably regardless of whether the Liberal Democrats were in coalition or not.

A third level of criticism was that this was something already known.  Indeed, Stonewall were quick to publish their response and a detailed response to a  consultation (which doesn't according to Featherstone start until next Spring) and that response was dated July 2011, suggesting that something is amiss.  Either Stonewall possess remarkable powers, or an insider deal has already been cooked with select groups.

Peter Tatchell and the Equal Love Campaign are already challenging the move.  Tatchell tweeted after the announcement the following:

Curiously, the move to extend same-sex marriage but NOT civil partnerships would create a very clear position of inequality - potentially strengthening the human rights legal action.  Thi9s practical argument, more than ideological arguments may persuage minsiters to have a re-think of civil partnerships.  This could however, back-fire with the total abolotion of civil partnerships to avoid the entrenchment of legislative inequality.  This would force same-sex couples to become 'married' even for those who fidn the term undesireable.

Whatever happens next, this is an important step, but it could be an incredible opportunity.  It would be a mistake for Featherstone and her allies to think that it's a case of 'job done' for if this really is about addressing equality, the work has a long way to go.

Was it Something I Said?

Last Wednesday night I 'outed' myself as a Lib Dem supporter in this election. I tried to answer concerns that my saying this might disproportionately influence opinion among my students. Well blimey, within 48 hours, the Lib Dems were in first place in the polls. Something I said? Obviously not.

Last Thursday's debate rendered it rather fashionable to be a Lib Dem and has caused a major headache for the Tories and Labour. Tonight's debate is vitally important to see if the Lib Dems can maintain the momentum. Three additional factors need to be considered. First, around 10% of people will get their postal vote early next week (myself included) and will vote before the third debate next week. Second, the deadline for registering has now passed. That means there is a limit on the number of new voters anyone can win over - although the last debate resulted in a registering surge which together with poll evidence suggests the Lib Dems have picked up a lot of 'new' voters. Third, the new policy focus on the Lib Dems is no bad thing as it means they can explain their positions - positions on Trident will be popular if explained. Europe is still a trick one but if Cameron goes after the Lib Dems on this issue he will blow his own party apart and look like just another boggle eyed Tory.

We've seen the parties respond to the Lib Dem surge. Clegg is now having to deal with a lot of mud about payments made into his personal bank account. It seems a little odd but lets see how this pans out. I think the decision to delay publication if documents by Clegg is a mistake. He needs to kill this story before it bleeds any support from any possible bump in the debate tonight.

Meanwhile, the Tories seem to be in more bother over the Tory vote on the very day that they try to reassure gay voters. More on that from me next...

Big Boy Lib Dems

The Liberal Democrats are probably the most 'progressive' in their policies and attitudes in relation to gender and sexuality. Whether that be in terms of 'gay rights, attitudes and laws regarding censorship, pornography, sex work or what we sometimes call 'alternative lifestyles'. This election represents a major opportunity for them to raise their game and boost their profile. For me, their equal billing in the three leadership debates is a massive coup but I worry that Nick Clegg is going to make a hash of it. As his appearance on the BBC Today programme this morning reminded us, he's peddling rapidly to the right and it's easy to portray him as 'Cameron light'. His constituency in Sheffield Hallam was Tory in 1997 until the then Lib Dem candidate Richard Allan took the seat for the Lib Dems (the constituency had previously been briefly Liberal between 1916 and 1918) and having lived there and been a school governor in the constituency I would say attitudes are Liberal/Tory. Yet, Nick Clegg shouldn't just be playing for his home audience now. If Charles Kennedy was still leader, he would in all likelihood ensure a major shift in support via these leadership debates with his popular charm and distinctly more left-wing policy approach.

Yet, regardless of which leader they have, they will now be exposed to more scrutiny than ever before. Presenter, journalist and Private Eye star, Andrew Neil has blogged this morning that: 'There are signs that the Lib Dems are not yet comfortable with this new level of scrutiny', and concludes with typical Neil chutzpah that: 'I'm sure they'll welcome being up there with the big boys'. He is of course right, the Lib Dems deserve this scrutiny and deserve to be taken seriously. That means the flippant mocking of the Lib Dems that presenters often engage in should also be toned down and the Lib Dems should be treated as presenters would the Tories or Labour.

Election 2010

I'm sure if I was to back any one party on this blog I would come in for criticism off those who I wasn't backing (branded a "typical lefty liberal academic" or "naive right winger taken in by Cameron's smooth talking" depending on which way I go). Given I've been criticised as a lefty liberal on FB and Twitter in recent months you can probably guess which way I'm leaning but then again long standing blog readers will note my various discussions of an earlier life in Tory politics. What can I say? I'm complicated.

I'm not going to say who I'm backing although I have pretty much made my mind up in the last couple of weeks and it was different to what I would have said 6 months ago so who knows what I'll decide by the time of the election (which will probably be May). For most of us, the choice at the next UK general election will be a three horse race - Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The Greens are gaining round and are in many ways the most progressive in addressing the LGBTQ agenda, but let's be honest, they will be lucky to win one seat (I think they will). The Tories remain ahead in the polls by around 9 points (Labour in second place and Lib Dems trailing behind at around 18%) which means there is a strong possibility of a hung Parliament and a second election later this year.

The Labour years saw a mass of legislation that transformed the social landscape - the Civil Partnership Act, Gender Recognition Act, Equality Act and so on. The Human Rights Act was in my view the most important of these. The Conservatives are committed to repealing that Act. I am among the growing number of voices to criticise these various legislative examples and argue for a greater embracing of queer perspectives and (in simple terms) flexibility in how we view gender, sexuality and the state's relationship with individual lives. For example why should straight = marriage and gay = civil partnership? Can we have more flexible and creative forms of union that move beyond the monogamous heterosexist and narrowly defined partnerships of old? Yet, despite this criticism, I also recognise the huge steps forward we have taken as a nation and given a choice between having this legislation and not - I would in pretty much each case choose to have them.

Nonetheless, we could and we should have a public conversation about a more radical agenda that moves issues of sexuality and gender further forward. Yet, in reality, none of the main parties are proposing anything along those lines. We can however look at attitudes on issues such as sex work (or prostitution for Tories and Labour), social welfare reforms targeted at families and the married, alongside attitudes toward gender and sexuality more generally.

These issues are not reasons alone to determine the choice of party (or indeed to choose an independent) but they are the issues this blog will be focusing on in the run up to a general election. It's hard to remember a leader so despised as Brown (Major was seen as weak but liked), the economy is still looking seriously dodgy, the public remain a little sceptical about the Tories and the Lib Dems will have a greater profile than ever before thanks to the leadership debates. It should be an interesting ride.