With friends like this

Returning once more to the subject of the 'marriage' of homosexuals.  If only to get the illiberal off to a good Easter!

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey (an Arsenal supporter by the way) has castigated (or attacked, depending upon your view) the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Lord Carey is quoted, on the BBC as saying

"I like David Cameron and believe he is genuinely sincere in his desire to make Britain a generous nation where we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully.
but it was a bit rich to hear that the prime minister has told religious leaders that they should 'stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation' when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.

At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians' right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity."
Lord Carey also that said a recent ComRes poll suggested "more than two-thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a 'persecuted minority'".
"Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the prime minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties."
He said that Mr Cameron "seems to have forgotten in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer's wishes should simply get another job".
'Profound contribution' And Lord Carey spoke of being "very suspicious" that behind plans for gay marriage "there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society". The danger I believe that the government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom is the alienation of a large minority of people who, only a few years ago, would have been considered pillars of society."

Lord Carey neatly captures the lie that is at the very heart of the Coalition policy.  On the one hand the Conservatives push themselves forward as the party of the family and of protecting traditional values and all the while they promote policies that devalue the family and undermine the values that made Britain what it was and were once the founding principles of the Conservative party.

Instead, the Conservatives push minority policies which are for the purpose of trying to be hip and cool and maybe gather some 'floating voters' from the metropolitan elite and leave their traditional constituency wondering, if the Conservatives are not for us, who are they for and who then, is for us?

Christian?  Can you really say that the Conservatives are for you?
Married? How do you feel about this meaning nothing anymore?
Children? Make sure you aren't married or you will be economically disadvantaged.

Get the picture?

If you do, tell your MP, enough is enough.  Real action not rhetoric.

Splitting the Coalition

Recently the Coalition government looked back on the first 2 1/2 years of the 5 year parliament and just about broke their own arms patting each other on the back.

On Tuesday, this same government will push forward with the 2nd reading of legislation to re-define marriage and allow homosexuals to 'marry'.  So what?  you may ask.  Well, where is the mandate for this?  It wasn't in the Conservative manifesto.  It wasn't in the Coalition Agreement, either.  The latter document, which I quote here stated:

 The deficit reduction programme takes precedence over any of the other measures in this agreement, and the speed of implementation of any measures that have a cost to the public finances will depend on decisions to be made in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

When you look at the way the deficit reduction programme is working out, you might say, why, when the government borrowings are increasing, is the government not focused on the economy?  Does anyone really think that allowing homosexuals to 'marry' will reduce the deficit?  And please don't prattle on about any kind of civil liberties deficit - you know what I mean.





The Coalition Agreement also said:

We will also ensure that provision is made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to the coalition agreement.

This was a long standing 'commitment' from the Conservatives to support, what they called the 'traditional marriage'.  Needless to say, the one promise about marriage, that they did make, they don't keep and then they introduce ones that they never made and for which they can categorically be said to have absolutely no mandate.  Indeed, 3 days before the 2010 election, David Cameron is reported (Coalition for Marriage) as to have categorically said that there were no plans to redefine the definition of marriage.  It is customary to hold politicians in such low regard that as a matter of nature, we tend to expect them to lie rather than tell the truth, but usually they have the decency to cover this in 'politico-speak' but here Cameron gave an unequivocal answer.  So why the change?

I think that given the Lib Dems, shameless and petty and spiteful rejection of the Boundary Changes legislation, the Conservatives should encourage all of their MPs to vote down this legislation, simply in retaliation.  I would like to think that they would actually vote this down on the dubious merits of the bill and the inherent inequalities that this bill brings as well as the inevitable intrusion into Church affairs but even among Tories, pandering to vocal minorities still occurs, so however you justify it, have the courage to do the right thing and vote it down.

At some point, the Coalition has to start moving apart so that by the time the next election comes, in May 2015, they can be seen to be the separate political parties that they are.  So the Conservatives should follow the Lib Dems lead.  The latter has started to move away from the Coalition, the Conservatives should do the same.

2012 blogging

I have just passed the 12 month anniversary of my first blog and, since we are approaching the year-end thought I would look back over the past year.  Don't worry, there will be no slow-motion clips, a la BBC Sports Personality of the Year!

First though a thank you to the more than 12,000 people who took the time to look through this.  Even if you didn't agree with what you read I appreciate your participation in the dialogue!

So...

Scotland and the independence vote was a much-written about topic for me and for those that comment on my musings/rants.  As Hogmanay looms, the people of Scotland know that they will have a vote and it will be a yes or no type of vote and in late 2014 but that's about it.  They have stories and counter-stories about whether they will remain in the EU or not and thus use the Euro or £ Sterling.  They have still heard little to nothing about how Scotland's economy and public spending will manage without the UK subsidy (making the EU membership question that much more important).  Hopefully, 2013 will bring some reasoned arguments to the debate.  I am encouraged by Alistair Darling leading the anti-independence side of the discussion.  I get the sense that he will also pick-up sympathy votes for having had to live and work with Gordon Brown for so long!

The topic that brought the most comments was the Government's plans for so called 'gay marriage'.  Many of the comments accused me of being homophobic.  I don't believe I am but I do recognize that that is the way that debate gets stifled.  Mention immigration and you are suddenly a racist BNP supporter, for example.  The Government conducted a sham public consultation exercise, where their view was already made-up and they will now push ahead with legislation and it will include certain safeguards including not allowing such 'marriages' to be conducted in Anglican churches  This is a meaningless sop to try and buy-off disgruntled and bemused Tory MPs and voters.  The government know that that part of the legislation will be challenged by homosexuals under Human Rights legislation.  Commenting on pro-homosexual  legislation that was passed in California, back in the 1970's, the comedian Bob Hope, said that he would soon have to leave that state, before they made homosexuality, compulsory.  I often wonder if that is the goal of the so called charity  Stonewall and the whole host of media that champion 'gay rights' to the detriment of the non-homosexuals in society?   The question I repeatedly posed - what does this legislation give homosexuals that they do not already have under the Civil Union act - remains unanswered.

Europe and the Euro were popular.  Time to confess that my predictions of  Greek exit from the Euro have been premature though I do believe that the whole project is still very precariously balanced and in jeopardy.  The big question though, is will David Cameron recognize the need for getting off of the fence and offering the electorate a clear In/Out vote on continued membership of the EU?  If he doesn't and Labour beats him to the punch then those people who have defected to UKIP can be counted on staying away from the Tories in 2015.

Then there is the UK political scene and particularly the pussy-footing way that the Tories deal with their supposedly junior coalition partner.  From dithering on Europe to pandering on 'gay marriage' to sparing the knife on public spending cuts, the Tories have bowed and scraped to the Lib Dems , time after time.   Taxes still remain high - Income, VAT, National Insurance and the phoney Green Taxes - and so does Public Spending - welfare payments still make low paid work uneconomic to take-up and many middle class receive tax credits and other stipends back from the State,  that they have just paid over in taxes!  And then there is the poor management of news!  The March Budget became focused on pasties and grannies just at a time when we needed the hard questions to be addressed.  It seems that can-kicking is not only done by the Left!

If you ignore rank hypocrisy and pure political opportunism (just for the sake of politicking) then Labour has had not too bad a year.  They were aided by the ineptitude of the Tories (see budget above) but Ed Miliband has come into his own this year.  He still grates when he talks and then there is what he says but, he has done better than I expected.  Fortunately, the other Ed, Balls that is, has had a bad year.  One senses that his heart isn't in it anymore.

I don't want to get on to Leveson as that comes back to Tory stupidity - we have a problem with the press, let's appoint a judge and commission a report for some time in the future!  Why would we expect anything less than a restrictive response from a British judge?  At the end of the day, judges, like politicians, think they know better than us, what is best for us!  Think not?  Think of how many times you have heard of a ruling and thought - No way, that's just crazy (Abu Qatada ring any bells??)

So to close out - I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and hope that 2013 brings health and happiness to you. 

Clegg, Gay Marriage and 'consultaton'

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister (remember) has made a farcical attempt to retract his painting of anyone opposing so called gay marriage as bigots.  This is the same Nick Clegg that castigated Gordon Brown because GB called an indignant member of the public, a bigot, during the last election campaign. 

I can understand that Clegg thinks it 'right on' to support this policy (or maybe he has been told to support it by the wife?) but why try to follow the example of Lynne Featherstone and further stifle debate, by insulting genuine opponents, who hold dearly felt opinions?

Featherstone, you may remember, launched a 'consultation' process advising that no matter what the outcome of this process, they (the government) would go ahead as planned.  I asked at the time, what was the point of a consultation exercise that would have zero bearing on the issue being consulted upon but answer came there none.  I know, at least she is being honest as it is unlikely that any consultation process actually changes anything but..........

I must be a bigot since I thought we lived in a representative democracy and my view had some value - seems not, if it isn't in 100% agreement with Clegg.

I have written on this proposed legislation before and predicted that the so-called 'we won't force churches to marry homosexuals ' assurance would not stand-up to a ECHR challenge and that is exactly what most commentators are now saying.  Some have suggested that the only way for churches to avoid charges of discrimination would be to not have any weddings no heterosexual and therefore no homosexual.

Sounds like a plan to me!  I can just imagine Cameron and Clegg and Salmond going up against the massed ranks of all those people who consider a church marriage absolutely required.

Come on CofE and the Catholic hierarchy, let's see some leadership!  Make the people see the consequences of this stupid and unnecessary legislation.

Oh and by the way, the economy is still in the toilet.  Let's not worry about that though!

Gay Marriage - again

The BBC posed a question  recently ' Is Gay marriage an election issue'?

I think yes.

I suspect  that returning to this topic will unleash the ignorant comments I have seen in the past but this needs to be said.

Why do I think yes? 

Firstly, I believe that some voters, who otherwise are indifferent, will wonder just what is going on.  When Britain is in the depths of recession and economic gloom and, while there is a realisation that 'so called' austerity cuts need to be made, folks will wonder why the people, who they have elected, choose this moment to spend their time, not addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that affect the man in the street, but instead pander to a vocal minority.

Secondly, voters will ask, as I have done, why do homosexuals feel that they need to have their unions called marriage?  People know and, like me, reckon that the 2004 Civil Union act, which afforded homosexual partners equal rights on a whole range of issues.  So why the need for further legislation?  OK, right-on pandering might be a reason but really?

I believe voters will see through the government's meaningless promises that 'no religious organisation will be compelled to offer marriage to homosexuals on religious sites'.  Everyone knows that this is rubbish and that before the ink is dry on the legislation, the homosexual advocates, for whom no amount of progress is ever enough (until perhaps homosexuals are in the ascendancy and heterosexuals are a down-trodden minority), will be pushing for marriages to take place in churches and claiming all sorts of 'human rights abuses' when they are denied.  We have seen this all before.

Christians certainly need only look back to the Abortion Act of 1967.  When this was passed the impetus was to close down 'back-street' abortionists and care for the people who would receive abortions.  These women were to be rape victims, women with social or mental  issues etc.  We were assured that there would be no 'abortion free for all'.  We know the truth to the lies peddled by the politicians of that time (led by the bill's author Lord David Steele (of the Lib Dems parish) and can see these in the ever soaring number of abortions being performed in the UK

I actually think that this proposed legislation and the phony consultation that is being conducted ('we are consulting about the legislation but we will pay no attention to any comments that we receive!') may have a negative effect or backlash against homosexuals.  Instead of just saying 'enough is enough' people might just say ' this shows we have already gone too far' - something similar to what is happening in people's response to the EU

Please feel free to comment but please try to answer the question 'What do homosexuals achieve by calling their commitment to each other a marriage rather than a civil union?'