Let Me Reintroduce Myself

It has been a while since I last posted here, and I am no longer sure whether blogging is still the best medium. Even so, because my earlier articles and opinions are still here, I am going to post again for a while and see what response it receives.

However, firstly who am I and why here.

Back in 2005 I first stood for election for the Westminster seat of Linlithgow and Falkirk East for the Liberal Democrats. I had been either a member or keen supporter since my Polytechnic/University days at Kingston. Yes, I am of an age that I filled in both an UCCA and PCAS form for my Higher Education choices and like the Archbishops of Canterbury and York am proud to have started my Higher Education at a Polytechnic (although by the time I graduated it was an University).

Shortly after that General Election I got into blogging to at the time a small readership. Then following the unfortunate death of Robin Cook, the MP for the neighbouring seat of Livingston, this blog picked up with stories about and from a high profile by election campaign. After which I maintained a high level of daily posts on a vast array of topics, though mostly political.

I grew up in Northern Ireland, did my degree in England, where I also worked in my first job. Then after a brief return of five years to Northern Ireland, moved to Scotland for love, stayed on after the relationship ended, to return to Northern Ireland for personal reasons. Where I have been living, apart from another period of working in Scotland, ever since. Apart from politics I love my sport, am the family genealogist, play bowls and cycle.

There were some periods of inactivity on the blog, one caused by the nature of the work I was doing, others due to personal circumstances that the content dried up. This was not because I no longer had opinions, but more because I had got out of the habit or lacked the time to polish what I wanted to post. Trust me there are a lot more abandoned drafts than finished blogs over recent years.

However, I am now in a position to start blogging on the political scene once again. Please bear with me as I may not be as prolific as I once was but I will aim to at least do a roundup of the week on a Friday as a minimum.

So count this a reboot of this method of me expressing myself and we will see how this goes. No doubt some of the brief points mentioned in the above will be fleshed out in the future (if not in the past content) when the context requires an appropriate anecdote.

I appear to be banned from Belfast Pride

My greatest acheivement in my political career was helping to craft the Scottish Liberal Democrat policy, that certainly inspired Federal Policy on marriage equality, which in turn became (although somewhat amended Marriage (Same Sex Couples Act 2013). Before coming back to Northern Ireland and working with any party, politician and group that wanted to get invovled in doing the same here.

 At that Scottish Spring Conference I actually moved an amendment on the issue to allow people seeking to obtain a GRC to remain in their marriage without having to go through the ludicous process of having to annul the marriage or civil partnership they had been in, only to enter another union with the same supportive partner. This was part of the original policy but due to the complexity for someone not aware of the issue, moved as an amendment for more time.

Now I get the anger against the executive parties, and while I have dual membership along with my Lib Dem membership of one of them, I appear now to be persona non grata at Belfast Pride this year.

This as well as my speechs in support of motions to lift the gay blood ban, ending the stigma of HIV, ending the spousal veto and other LGBT+ issues. Belfast Pride could have certainly asked party groups not to have their politicians to parade this year. After all like any LGBT+ group in any political party in Northern Ireland down the years we have had work to do to make the politicans at the top understand the LGBT+ issues (yes even the holier than thou Greens).

 I personally have often had public spats with Alliance leaders on social media when the party falls short on LGBT+ issues. I also often raise these points in private too, less public but often more productive. I'm sure other activists in the other executive parties do exactly the same.

 The total ban will impact the very people working away in those parties who are working to get their elected representatives to take the correct action on trans issues, and to finally get a Sexual Orientation and/or LGBTQI+ Strategies.

So bear this in mind, Belfast Pride thinks that the Northern Irish born, Presbyterian raised, son of two elders, who has had somewhat of an impact in allowing civil, humanist and religious groups (that wish to do so*) to perform same sex marriages.

 But year this year I will not be allowed to march as someone politically active. SHAME on those of Belfast Pride who ignore that the party groups include people like me. SHAME on Belfast Pride for turning their back on the very people best able to make the political leadership take note.

* Sadly during its course through Westminster the Church of England and Church in Wales alone of all religious groups were excluded from this and will need an amendment or enabling act in Parliament to ever be able to carry out Same-Sex Marriages.

Alex Salmond 1954-2024

Seeing as I was involved in politics in Linlithgow and Scotland wider for 10 years I of course encountered the Royal Burgh's most famous political son in many ways. Whilst our political viewpoint differed it does not undermine the shock that I felt when I returned home last night to hear he had died while attending a conference in North Macedonia.

He was born on Hogmany in 1954 and one of my first times standing at a polling place for council elections I encountered his parents, who lived just across the road, as they came to cast their votes for our main opponent that day.

As I spent more years going around the doors of Linlithgow I would encounter more of his former school mates both at Linlithgow Primary School and Linlithgow Academy. Some were very supportive of Alex and his agenda, others less so. However, it was always interesting as many of these people actually volunteered their thoughts on the then leader of the Scottish National Party to the Lib Dem canvasser/candidate on their doorsteps.

There were also encounters with Alex on the campaign trail, never in Linlithgow and Falkirk East sadly but in some of the by elections up at down the country.

One morning I was out campaigning for the Dunfermline and West Fife by election in a housing estate and had already encountered a Labour team already which included later leader Kezia Dugdale. Both our teams had heard a SNP loudspeaker going around the area with what we thought was a pre-recorded message from Alex. That was what I thought until a few minutes later emerging from one of the paths linking the streets into a large communal parking area I came across the car with the loudspeakers attached, only to see the SNP leader sat in the passenger seat with a microphone in his hand. That estate certainly was getting a lot of activity and focus from the three main parties that day.

While I disagree with much of what Alex stood for, he certainly had charisma and under him the SNP did what many felt was impossible in 2011 and gained a majority of members of the Scottish parliament under the additional member system.

He flitted between Westminster and Holyrood throughout his political career being MP for Banff and Buchan from 1987-2010, concurrently MSP for Banff and Buchan from 1999-2003, MSP for Aberdeenshire East 2007-2016, MP for Gordon 2015-2017. He led the SNP for over 20 years during to 10 year spells 1990-2000 and 2004-2014 and was the first SNP First Minister of Scotland from 2007-2014. 

He reigned from the SNP, who he'd joined in 1973 when he attended St Andrews University, in 2018 to fight allegations of sexual misconduct allegations. He was found not guilty of all the charges levelled at him. But he subsequently fell out with his pordigy Nicola Sturgeon and formed the Alba party in 2021 but failed to win a seat as the party's lead candidate on their North East Scotland list, the party returned no MSPs.

He'd been married to his wife Moira since 1981 but the couple had no children, my thoughts are with her at this difficult time.

Nine years on Lib Dems have fought back

On the equivalent day 9ish years ok I wrote this it was after a tough couple of days and no sleep as I took a train up from England, through Scotland and back to Northern Ireland. I wrote:

I believe last night we [the Liberal Democrats] faced the sound of gunfire and many of us fell on the battlefield. But now is the time to entrench, bring in the reinforcements to fill the ranks and prepare for the next offensive in 2020. We have a fight on our hands to get back to the strong voice we have gained in recent years, but it is a fight back that I sure is worth the effort.

Well today after a similar lack of sleep, and actually two elections 2017 and 2019 after the Conservatives undid the Fixed Term Parliament Act, we as Liberal Democrats have a differnt look on our faces. We have not just fought back to the levels of 2005 (the actual high level mark) but beyond that. There are currently 71 Lib Dem MPs an the former area where Charles Kennedy is remembered Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire has gone to a recount tomorrow.

Among those seats we have taken are three once held by former Tory PMs Maidenhead (Theresa May), Henley and Thame (Boris Johnson*) and Witney (David Cameron). Also the:

• Home of golf - (St Andrews) North East Fife - Wendy Chamberlain
• Headqurters of Rugby - Twickenham - Munira Wilson
• Home of Scottish Rugby - (Murrayfield) Edinburgh West - Christine Jardine
• Home of Tennis - Wimbledon - Paul Kohler
• Home of Rowing - Henley and Thame - Freddie van Mierlo
• Home of the Derby - Epsom and Ewell - Helen Maguire
• Worthy Field - Glastonbury and Somerton - Sarah Dyke

You could if you wanted, via a little indirect route, travel from the Sussex coast (Eastbourne and neighbouring Lewes), via the lowest lock on the Thames at Teddington (Twickenham and Richmond Park on both banks), all the way to the Severn Esturary (Thornbury and Yate, or further West at Wells and Mendip Hill) or carry on the whole way into North Devon. Both Lands End (St Ives) and John O'Groats (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) are in Lib Dem seats.

So what now for those 71 MPs? Well hopefully we now get the recognition and air time we deserve as the third largest party in Westminster. There should be a Lib Dem on most panels going forward, their will be a question every week in PMQs. We can use that exposure to get our ethos, philosphy and policies across to to the public at large without out leader having to pull off stunts to get the air time. Let's not forget that in a blind poll of policies that the pubic supported 8 of the top 10 were Liberal Democrat policies. The people actually like what we are proposing, we need to tell them about it and then even more of them should decide they can vote for us.

This morning, unlike that long trip I made in 2015, I have the largest smile on my face (even though my own MP lost his seat**) and so many more Libs across the country are also reinvigorated. Many of our Young Liberals weren't around in the party in 2015. Many of us old hands have sunk to the depths but like the cockroaches Tim Fallon said our party was we were not eradicated and have come back.

For the last couple of election cycles I've taken more of a backseat that I had prior to 2015, that is part of being a carer. I'd love to get more involved if time allows going forward, but one thing I'm sure I will be doing is starting to blog again more. I know this format is probably so last decade but I'll do what I do, watch this space.

*Admittedly the one he held before he came back to become MP

** Stephen Farry of Alliance sadly lost here in North Down

The Time I Met Paul O'Grady and Lily Savage at the Same Time

 Back in the 1990s I worked for H. Samuel and for three years of that time I was based in the store (no longer within the group) that was positioned at the Piccadilly Circus end of Shaftesbury Avenue. It was the flagship store of the chain at the time, with the famous semi-circle window up in what was our ring sizing and buffering room and being right under the neon lights. It also of course was right in the heart of things.

Right in the heart of the hustle and bustle of the City of Westminster. Shops, Government and Theatre land were all walkable. Although our branch didn't shut until 10pm we ofter got a last minute rush of customers after the theatres got out.

Further along Shaftesbury Avenue during that time a musical version of Prisioner Cell Block H was having a run. A very well dressed man in a suit entered early one afternoon and went straight over to the costume jewellery cabinet. When he say what he wanted there was a familiar Birkenhead accent that called over to me:

"Excuse me! I'd like to take that red necklace and earings to match please."

It was not the most expensive sale I ever processed in that store, that would undoubtledly be the three times I sold the matching his and hers Raymond Weil Parsifal watches which at the time were a neat £2,750. But this was the time I took the credit card of Mr P O'Grady knowing full well that these items although going to be worn by someone else were going to grace his neck and ears. He had obviously dropped in before heading up the Queen's Theatre (now the Sondheim) to get Lily ready or her staring role in Prisoner Cell Block H.

RIP Paul O'Grady 1955 -2023

Is Government asylum policy "fair and right"?

 So Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has broken the ministerial silence since the BBC asked Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day. In doing so he says that Linker "was a great footballer and is a talented presenter" before going on to say that that he believes that the government's policy is "fair and right?

The question though should be is it?

Firstly we need to rebuff the phrase branded about claiming there are illegal asylum seekers. The Refugee Council point out:

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim

The UK is a signatory of that Convention. This is the Convention was actually in part drafted by Winston Churchill. It is also something that is enshrined into the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the ECHR that when presenting her policy to the House of Commons the Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote:

I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migrants Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed to the Bill.

Herein lies problem number one. We are already calling those that arrive my small boats Illegal Migrants, see the Refugee Council above. But also this Government knowingly wants to proceed when it could break a Convention drafted with British input. 

Maybe we can rule out that the Bill is going to be right on that basis.

As for is it fair, we need to look at how anyone claim asylum in the UK under the Bill. Let us return to the Refugee Council.

It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.

Yet the Government are saying that the provisions of the Bill will not affect people who seek a legal route into the UK to claim asylum, such routes do not exist.

The Bill also aims to detain those that reach these shores by small boat without trial, without access to a lawyer for the first 28 days, or the courts, and then deport them, with no legal right to appeal and to be barred for ever from entering the UK.

 
However, arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is prohibited under international human rights law. Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"; that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law.  

So not looking very fair or very right. Also, before I get apologists saying but these are all international treatings and conventions remember one thing. In the shadow of World War II it was Britain that was at the forefront of drafting and writing the conventions and treaties that are mentioned here. This was done to prevent a nation treating other humans in a lesser way. At the moment the UK Government is steering us into a clear breach of so much international convention we are heading to being a pariah state on a par with Russia, North Korea et al.

Not just close to the language of 1930s Germany

 So the outrage over Gary Lineker's comments that some of the language used by the Home Secretary to launch and defend her asylum policy has wreaked havoc to this weekend's football schedule on the BBC. Now this is the thing, Gary only compared that language to 1930s Germany, anyone with a little knowledge of the diaries, biographies from pre-war British politicians will be able to point out to something a little closer to home.

There are three types of sources we can learn from history. First there are straight forward history texts, these are often written long enough after the event to sanitise some of the comment. Then is biography of those involved, these need to be taken with a pinch of salt, some as sycophantic in their praise for their subjects, others are the reverse written by those who disagree with them, occasionally you will find a balanced view but even that will have omissions. Then there are the firsthand documents, speeches, diaries etc. 

As someone who is still plodding through the unabridged diaries of Chips Cannon (I'm now on volume 3) I have read the pre-war entries. I can see why when the diaries were first to be printing that many leading lights in politics were nervous until they were told they would be heavily edited. You see the thing is in those diaries are recorded the language, thoughts and opinions of many of those in the Conservative party and British aristocracy that Cannon mingled with. The language used by Braverman is actually very similar to that of many in pre-war Britain who were sympathetic or enthusiastic for the National Socialist Party in Germany.

Now I doubt that Gary has an extensive a political library that I have. There were of course members of the Conservative Party who were opposed to too close a link with Germany during that period. But as Churchill himself pointed out these were his wilderness years as he was away from the main thrust of his party. However, there were many to the right of the Conservative party at that time who either flirted with or espoused fascist ideology. That group is worrying, looking at them and the attack on asylum seekers from the current Conservative party they would seem to fit right in with the current party and policies, some of which are actually taken straight out of the National Front policy book from the 1970s.

So here's the thing the actions from the Government calling out against the criticism of their policy, forcing what is meant to be an impartial public service braodcaster take a side is this debate, is exactly the opposite of impartiality. They never rile against opinion when it is strongly in their favour. They never stand up when the exclusion of pro-European voices such as the Liberal Democrats were missing from many of the political panel shows during the lead up to the referendum to leave the EU. No, the cries from Westmister, despite the wolf call from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that "indivual cases are a matter for the BBC" are actually the signs of repression of freedom of speech. One side of a culture war is given carte blanche but dare to speak out on the other side and we will shut you down.

Today there are no presenters, pundits or commentators, willing to bring football to the BBC. So no Football Focus, no Final Score no match commentary of Radio 5 Live, no Fighting Talk on the radio tomorrow either. Match of the Day  itself will have no pundits, no commentary (from the usual freelancers) and maybe also not any interviews with players or managers. 

People are standing up and wanting to be counted. The mood may be that the language is divisive, the language is hedging towards that of Mosley's New Party in the early 30s here on British soil. The football community this weekend may be making a stand against that language in their own version of Cable Street. 

Kate Forbes misses out the liberalism of same-sex marriage legislation

 So Kate Forbes, who at the time of writing this, is running in the leadership election of the Scottish National Party has said she would have voted against same-sex marriage legislation at the time, if she had been elected to Holyrood. She is also accusing others of being illiberal who speak out against her views.

The irony is that same-sex marriage was from the time was written as policy the whole way up to legislation shows how liberal you can be, while not excluding other. You see same-sex marriage legislation could have forced faith groups to carry out such marriages. However, nobody in a same sex relationship wants to celebrate or have that recognised in somewhere they don't feel welcome. That is why in my opinion one of the key phrases in same sex marriage legislation is "allow faith groups that wish to do so". 

You see prior to SSM legislation nobody could carry out a same sex marriage, not in civil law, in a faith setting or in Scotland by a humanist celebrate. At this point I'll ignore the fact that at Lib Dem Federal level the policy for Same Sex Marriage had to be amended to allow humanist celebrants to carry out mixed sex mrriages (which had only been possible in Scotland up until then). You see when drafting the policy in Scotland it was clear that nobody would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. 

But I hear you say what about making registrars carry out same-sex marriages. Those who raise an argument about this based on their religious perspective seem to leave their religious views at the door when they marry divorced couples or even couples who Kate Forbes would say were wrong already had children.

You see SSM is a legislation that enables faith groups to come to their own decisions. With the exception of the Church of England and Church in Wales that some people thought it would be better to legislation against those churches solely making a decision on their own, and thus amended to exclude them from the enabling to carry out such marriage if they wanted to.

But it is something I have faced through the 13 years that there has actually been a Lib Dem policy in place for SSM. Something that I am proud to have had a hand in When people in faith groups accuse it of impinging on them when n fact the only thing impinging on them is their own views. It is ironicly something that I still struggle with coming from my own church The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, although I do feel excuded from there because of the judgement those in high places put on people from the LGBT+ community. In a strange way Covid actually makes my church accessible to me once more even though I haven't set foot in it for years.

The irony is that today a spokesperson for the Free Church of Scotland, of which  Kate Forbes is a member said:

"It is lamentable that Kate's honest adherence to simple traditional values would, for some, disqualify her from contributing to the public good of Scotland.

"Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies - the fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society." 

As I have pointed out above the views themselves are actually protected in the legislation she is opposed to. But the Free Church like one or two others likes to play the victim in all this.

It was faith that made homosexuality illegal in the first place and every step of the way LGBT+ people have had to slowly move towards equality, not getting there in one step like banning did, but incrementally. At every step we are told that people of faith don't agree with loosening the hod they have over our civil lives, while some of our are also in dialogue with them in relation to our faith lives. Kate Forbes has put this front and fore of her campaign during her launch, yet apparently we are not to take her stances as a step towards leading a Government as a possible move to restrict freedoms. If we speak up against it we are the illiberal ones, despite constantly bending over backwards to get small change after small change to not upset those with certain faith views to object to everything.

Conservative and Unionist Party hoisting the union on a Trans Petard

The full name of the party that is in Government in Westminster is the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, today that took a shocking step that may well rock or even split up that union.

It is being announced that the Scottish Secretary will this evening inform the Scottish First Minister that tomorrow he will take the legal steps to invoke a Section 35 which allows Westminster to overturn a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This is something that has never been done in the 25 years of the Socttish Parliament. 

The piece of legislation that it is seeking to overturn is the Gender Recognition Bill that was passed with an overwhelming vote of 67% of MSPs voting in favour. The breakdown by party was

• All 4 Lib Dem MSPs in favour (100%)
• All 7 Green MSPs in favour (100%)
• 21 out of 22 Labour MSPs in favour (95%)
• 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs in favour (84%)
• 2 out of 31 Conservative MSPs in favour (6%)

So as you can see every party in Scotland bar one was overwhelmingly in favour. The fact that the Westminster Conservative Government is now going to block this going to Royal Assent is a political football being played in an increasingly right wing leaning Conservative party. The language that the party has been using on assylum seekers, Trans peoples, workers rights to strike and protest are all now looking more and more authoritarian. 

However, by invoking section 35 for the first time in history this is also piling up gunpowder under the very Union itself in a way which unlike Guy Fawkes may explode the union. It is such a minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of things, but it opens a flood gate and leads to a slippery slope. At a time when those who want another independence referendum are already heated, the act of stopping a Scottish Act gaining Royal Assent just might push many who were agnostic to Scotland's independence into the independence camp.

The worse thing is that the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Bill has no actual impact on UK-wide equality legislation, this was pointed out in the wording of the Bill itself. It is only impacting the right to change your gender on your birth certificate and only impacts those who wish to do so not anyone else. We in the UK do not currently* need to carry our birth certificates around with us. 

The Secretary of State of Scotland also calls for there to be more consideration of this. However, there was already 6 years of public consultion into this bill it was not rushed, what is rushed in the UK Government's response.

Yet this is the petard upon which the Westminster Government is prepared to hoist the Union.

It is laughable that the West Lothian Question which caused Tam Dalyell great ethical quandry over Scottish devolution will pale into comparison to what today has become the Westminster Question. What is a Secretary of State for Scotland opposes the will of a supermajority of the devolved Scottish Parliament.

By saying currently the more right wing, authoritarian and dare I say facist the Conservative Party are becoming me may well start to single out individuals and groups of individuals may not be far off.

 

Maths post 16 years old

 

So Rishi Sunak thinks that maths should be taught to all young people up to the age of 18. Now I do have an O'level in Maths, plus one in Additional Maths, an A'Level in Maths, plus as part of my Economics degree did guide a lot of maths/statistics. So I would say I know a fair amount about the type of maths that is taught after the age of 16 as in some form or other I was being taught maths up until the age of 22. My late father also had a degree in maths.

I have laid out my maths qualifications here to show the level of expertise I have on the issue of maths. I know that some out there in this post expertise required age will argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, but thats the nature of knowledge these days.

On top of this I have 2 nephews both post 16 years old and a niece currently in secondary education. Each of them have different experience of maths through their schooling as well. So with all the agrued experience within our family is maths really something that needs to be taught to everyone after the age of 16.

Most of the maths that most careers need for every day use is that which is taught up to the age of 16. Additional maths, A'level and anything you are taught at university are more specialised for the decipline you are studying or more complex maths. If you go into a career that works with numbers yes you will need to know the principles behind many of the more complex maths, especially when you have to set up a spreadsheet or a data base programme that needs to calculate something. Excel or other programmes may be good but the better the maths of the person working it the more complex the functionality can become. For this I also worked as a global data analyst for a call centre with all sorts of contingency built in, some of our worksheets will still be funtional long after we are gone, for example, working out set public holidays (Easter is a little more awkward).

My nephew are a mixture one is science base the other more artistic. Both were good at maths, both got decent result in their GCSE but both knew the path they wanted to travel. For one maths fitted into the sciences for the other it didn't fit in. Does that decision make one of them less useful going into adulthood? No! As for my neice she struggles with maths, something that I know a lot of people do, these are probably the proportion of people that the Prime Minister wants to educate more in maths.

So while I can do matrix algebra, complex statistical equaltions with x constants and other stuff that would blow your mind this isn't going to help your hairdresser, car mechanic, beautician or bricklayer. They all just want to do a BTEC after the age of 16.

Post 16 education needs to remain a mix of academic split into sciences and humanities, and vocational. The vocataional courses will include what maths is required within those professions but that maths isn't what is stardardly taught at 16 year. No young person over the age of 16 should be enslved into the level of maths that someone Winchester educated, with an Oxford First in PPE and Fulbright Scholar who went on to become an investment banker before turning to politics thinks helped him. This is how out of touch with ordinary people, ordinary work and day to day life the richest Prime Minister in our nations history is.

Tis the Season for Drag...Oh No it Isn't

 Gender Critics are taking exception to Drag Queens interacting with children.

While this may be a cultural issue that sparks fear in the USA when they try to import it to the UK they forget a number of issues.

1. 
   
    Almost every adult in the UK's first introduction to the theatre was a cross  dressing bonaza known as Pantomime. Not only was there always a motherly figure (two/three in the case of Cinderella's sisters/mother) who was clearly a man in a frock, or to be more precise a different frock every time they appeared on the stage. But also the leathere ding lady would invariably fall for a principle boy who was another women dressed a man. And despite all this cross dressing everyone lived happily ever after. But more importantly these Drag artists were often used as fillers while the set was being redressed, bringing children up unto stage for interaction with them, or going out in to the auditorium with the house lights up to do the same.
2. Moving on from Pantomime the Bard, ie William Shakespeare had a number of plays they involved cross dressing. This is especially incredible out of sync with gender critical objections when you consider at the time of Shakespeare only men would appear on stage even in the female roles. But to this day those plays that contain plots lines of cross dressing do not draw the ire of gender critical, TERFs, transphobes in the same way and story time with a drag queen.
3. Historically we have always had Drag appearances on our TV. There was of course Dame Edna Everage and Lily Savage but also there were many sketches by the Two Ronnies and Dick Emery in drag all were mainstays of Saturday night televion.

You see drag and cross dressing is very much a part of British culture. Those who attack it are attacking UK culture from a narrow American world view. Indeed many male employees across the country and also dressed up in drag to raise money for Children in Need or Comic Relief down through the years. We in Britain do no inherantly have issues with men dressing as women per se.

But the transphobic Gender Critical movement have taken it on. With the success of Ru Paul's Drag Race and its spin offs we are now seeing more Drag Queens who like Lily Savage started in gay venues coming to the fore. The attack on these drag performers is an attack on otherness. It is an attack on the entire LGBT+ community. You see they have objections to the T, they see drag a gateway to the T, which is not the case for a large majority of drag performers. It is an art form. The art from the makeup, dresses and performace all of this is art. But it is art that is comfortable in an LGBT+ space, but is starting to find its feet outside those once safe (or not so safe historical) spaces into the mainstream.

The obection to drag queens. The mindless protests against drag story time up to the shooting of a gay venue hosting a drag night. All of this is an attack on LGBT+ people. It starts with the T but it spreads to include the LGB, another reason that the LGB Alliance does not represent LGB people. We see the harm that gender critical views are leading to. For them the T, the transphobia, is a starter to being H, homophobic. The LGB Alliance cannot see this and they do no represent us, there are a front for Transphobia painted up to appear LGB friendly. Somehow this organisation has charity status despite doing nothing to support LGB people, its sole purpose if to attack trans people, or more correctly only trans women.

The history of drag in the UK is in front of the Gender Critics for all to see. Or more to the point in this season, it's behind you, and goes back an awfully long way.

My Footballess World Cup

 

Support LGBT+ fans may not be seeing this World Cup

My first memory of World Cup was Argentina 1978 as the UK was on the March with Allie's Army. There was the first wall chart in Glenn family history hung on the cork tiles in the kitchen and one of the first games I may have watched involved Iran who played Scotland in the second of their group games.

This year Iran are gain taking on some home nations today playing England and later will take on Wales. However, unlike 1978 and every World Cup since I don't care. You see almost 10 years ago when the venue of this World Cup was announced I blogged with the concluding remarking saying:

So I guess I'll not even be watching the 2022 World Cup, even on TV, thanks to decision of FIFA today. Wonder what I'll end up doing instead?

Well true to my word I am not.

The announcement today that the 9 European nations who said they would wear the One Love armband all backed out of their commitment when it turned up that their captains would face a football sanction for doing so, makes that decision all the more real.

Before the tournament started FIFA President trying to rally people around te football rather than the failures of Qatar said amongst other things "Today I am gay". Sadly the actions of him and FIFA show that he is not gay. 

Also those who promised to be allies of LGBT+ fans have proven they are only allies in words alone, not when they might face consequences. They promised to wear an armband saying one love, in support of LGBT+ fans, but when FIFA said they would face football sanctions possibly a yellow card, those promises vanished. The LGBT+ fans were up in arms. You see gay people face consequences.

At the weekend, there were five people at a nightclub in Colorado Springs who lose their lives when a shooter invaded a gay nightclub, in a reasonably liberal society. In Qatar LGBT+ people face prision time for being who they are, today even some fans have been told to take off shirts with the price colours on them.

It reminds me of an anecdote of my time supporting Livingston. When you support a small team home and away the stalwarts all know you, there were three coaches of fans at away matches at the time, we were a large family. But occassionally we had more fans than normal travelling away. At one League Cup tie at Celtic Park we have a wedge in one corner of the stadium. So when a Celtic player stepped up to take a corner and as the players raised their hands calling for the ball, one of my teams fans started shouting "Put you hand up if your gay". So I did. He was only about 4 rows behind me, so I could hear some of the regulars telling him to stop, as they know I was was there and what me raising my had was all about. Survice to say he never tried that again suring that match.

Gay fans have step by step taken fans to stand up. Face consequences. Become bolder. Follow our teams, our countries and not hide who we are. Sadly today FIFA, the FIFA President, certain Associations and players have all shown that unlike gay fans or gay players they are not prepared to face the consequneces when it actually matters. 

Their words are hollow. Their support fair weather.

My World Cup for 2020 will remain footballless.

The Fable of the Critical Control of Freedom of Thought

 Once upon a time, not too long ago, a political party could think what it wanted, propose ideas it espoused and work to make the world a better place. But sadly those days are now the things of fairy tales.

Now you see it is not the right of polical movement to come up with ideals, hold them steadfast and work to making them take shape in society. No, now, even here in the UK, it is they who have the biggest crowdfunded legal fund who pull all the strings.

Yes sadly even if for years you thought your party's vision was that nobody should be enslaved by conformity, a small group of people, critical of changes in our society that are in the early days of being enshrined by law, will jump upon you at ever utterance of progress.

They believe they they should have the freedom of speech to speak their minds, even if what is on their mind is to make everyone conform to their ideal. They will challenge you from entering their spaces even though this has been established in law. They want to call you by a name you no longer use, without ramifications. They want to label you by whatever term they want to use and not what you want others to use for you. Indeed they say that you asking to be called what you want, labelled as you want is an intrusion on their liberty up with which they will not put.

Thus it have come to pass that through some legal challenges those critics of change have got their hate filled, harmful agenda recognised as a system of belief and those views are protected under law in certain circumstances. However, once judgement, while it does not give them carte blanche to express those views without restriction is actually not how they see it. They see the limited extent that one judgement has been made in their favour as validation that what they think is correct. It certainly isn't a pleasant way of thinking, it isn't kind, it isn't gentle. 

When any dare to challenge them they harrass and pile on. Allies of those impacted can be called all manner of slurs when they raise their heads above the parapet to defend those they attack and dismiss. Names like mysogynist, homophobe and when defending children who they attack paedophile is also thrown into the mix.

Yes what I am talking about is those who self identify as gender critical. In reality I will call them what they are transphobes. They have an irrational fear of trans women it would seem trans men are not the subject so much of their vitriol. They want everyone to only use the public toilets, changing rooms of the sex they were assigned at birth. So they start to challenge women cis or trans who look a little masculine. Heaven helps them if they get their way and trans men actually start to enter women's facilities and they get challenged about being where those critics have been campaigning for them to be.

But the sad thing is that apparently political thought is now dead. A political party that stands for liberal thought, that has long stood up for the underdog and the oppressed now must kowtow to those who express gender critical tought. This is the new watered down code of conduct on transphobia from the party I hold dear.

Well when like me you are someone who responds to a large number of  government consultations basing those responses very much on the thoughts laid out in the preamble to our constitution. When I also base my votes at oonference on those same ideals. When many of my speeches and answers to questions on doorsteps or in hustings also hark back to that document, I know where I stand. I know I shall not be moved. I too have a belief, a belief that the preamble to our constition sets out goals for  a liberal future.

Yes in a liberal society you can be critical of things, but when that criticism causes harm, maligns whole sections of society and is in fact intolerant rather that critical it does not have a place within liberalism. It is facism, it is thought control rather than freedom of speech of expression. When you cry defamation at anyone who questions you critically. When you slur and harrass anyone who questions someone on their motivation to the extent it takes hours to check on their notification. They you are in the business of subverting freedom and enslaving others to your conformity.

And that destopia is something I do not want to see come to be.

Other takes on this: 

miss_s_b

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats

The Paradox of Tolerance

 In a note on chapter 7 of his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper wrote the following.

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

This is somthing I've been returning to in recent months, as was something from the study of philosopy as part of my Economics degree, it was a little aside I went down in he age before Wikipedia and the rest.

But it is something that is becoming very real again to. Popper wrote this just as Facism was facing defeat. Now we have a new idealogy that seems to want to forbid their followers from listening to rational argument. Whether that in the form of the Brexiteers calling all arguments "Project Fear", Trump supporters denying the result of the 2020 election and the Gender Critical brigade who want everyone to conform to a binary definition of gender defined at birth.

All three of the above movements show an intolerance to other views. There were times during the Brexit debate some people said I did not know what I was talking about, despite having an Economics degree and taking options in European Economics in both by second and third year. As well as writing my dissertaion on the effect on European Economics with the then possible expansion of the EU.

The same applies now whenever I stand up for Trans rights I have people jump on who call me a mysogynist, homophobic and/or a paedophile. The latter is especially true when I say that people under the age of 18 can realise their sexual indentity and gender and need support in that. Apparently yet again lived experience that this is true is not enough for some, now is having studied medical sources. 

So do we live is an age that is post rational argument?

When I was studying economiccs at University one of my tutors told us read the news from three sources every day. One paper from the view you agree with, one from the opposite opinion and also if you can find it a neutral point of view. This daily exercise of going into the library to look at how other papers expressed the same news was eye opening. It also made me more aware to look to the source material where possible. Sadly today too many people only get their news, their opinions and their talking points from those who share their beliefs. It is too easy to only wallow in the views you have.

However, if that leads to intolerance, don't argue that we must tolerate your intolerance. We will provide reasoned argument that you are wrong, but if you block us, say to your follows we are deceptive, use bullying tactics to try and silence us, we will stand up to your intolerance. We will call it out. We do not have to tolerate intolerance to be liberal and tolerant. 

Follow Up to My Resignation Letter from LDCF

 As I did say at the end of my post of my resignation letter from the LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum) I did say I would publish a follow up about some of the context before and to answer some the queries that have come up since.

First of all the context.

Last weekend I became aware that the Chair of LDCF has signed an open letter started by Liberal Voice for Women. He had signed it not in a personal capacity as all bar one of the other signaturies had done, but on behalf of the exec of LDCF. The other exception was the Chair of Liberal Voice for Women.

Liberal Voice for Women is a group that is not affiliated to the Liberal Democrats in any way and have been asked to stop using the word Liberal in their title as it is misleading. This, however, does not stop them emailing members of the Liberal Democrats bringing Gender Critical concerns to the fore and sometime leading potentially naive members, councillors, peers and others to be swayed by their argument. Some of whom have later regretted decisions they made supporting the group and have apologised for their action, naivity on the subject and hurt they have caused long standing friends.

The current letter was regarding freedom of speech for the groups LGB Alliance and FiLiA to have stalls at the upcoming Lib Dem Conference. The only people with a right to have stalls at Lib Dem Conference would be the Groups that are made up of Liberal Democrats the groups that represent subsets of our membership. Groups such as LDCF and LGBT+ Lib Dems for example. Other groups, organisations and charities with outside interests will be invited or accepted by the Conference Committee. Some of these are ungoing concerns that share the parties values, other are groups that are relevant to the debate or areas of policy we are focussing on at present. In any event there is finite space for stalls in the exhibition part of conference.

The argument about freedom of speech is one that would sway Liberal Democrats, we love debate especially amongst ourselves. However, with relation to the two organisations in question how do they use the freedom of speech they already have?

Those who support these two organisations use their freedom of speech to spread fear about trans women, never trans men it is interesting to note. They want trans people to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth, ie they don't want trans women in women's bathrooms, changing rooms or spaces, but seem to ignore the implication that trans men with their testosterone shots and growing their facial hair would be subject to the same rules and have to be in "women's" spaces. 

They also use their freedom of speech to lambast, copy post, abuse and torment not only trans people but any of us who show support for them. Everytime any of us of LGBT+ Lib Dems twitter account post in support of Trans people we are attacked virolantly.

This letter is asking to allow members of this organisation to operate a stall, to share the same space as LGBT+ members who would have their own stall at Lib Dem Conference. The LGBT+ stall is more than just a stall to promote our organisation it is also a stall that has helped many LGBT+ members of the party feel safe, often for the first time, to talk about their sexuality or gender identity. This safe space would easily be affected by anti-trans groups, who also aren't too keen on trans supportive LGB people or trans inclusive feminists, being set up who knows how far away.

Now when I saw that the Chair of LDCF had signed this letter on behalf of the LDCF Exec I did not accuse the entire Exec of making a misjudgement. I reached out to friends on the Exec of LDCF to get a better picture of what was happening. I was relieved to hear that concerns had been raised by some about taking action as a group to sign this letter. 

There was also an offer to speak to the chair relayed through one of these exec members. As I have a tiring work schedule and other commitments I asked to what end this phone call would have, but heard nothing back through that channel.

Well this morning a statement (since amended slightly) appeared on the LDCF website. The initial wording started with "LDCF unanimously co-signed a letter". I took obvious objection to such wording as I was a member of LDCF and had not given permission for anyone to sign that letter on my behalf as part of LDCF, nor was there any communication with the membership of the whole about such a letter. How this could be unanimous is a party of voting geekery is beyond me.

Clearly as a past member of the LGBT+ Exec, an openly gay three time Westminster Candidate I could not stand by and have myself associated with such a poorly worded statement that seemed to suggest I agreed to such a stance. I announced I would be tendering my resignation forthwith in response to the Twitter post with the statement and drafted the letter.

I said I would publish the letter just over an hour after I submitted the resignation letter. This was to allow peope time to maybe persuade others that the statement should to be taken down from the website before further consideration was given to this matter. When it was still there at 10:30 I hit publish on my accounts.

In the interim I did get question from the LDCF Twitter account, at first anonymously but in a personal capacity. When I enquired who was asking, it was from the Chair. However, when I asked publically if he had reached out the LGBT+ Lib Dems I got the response.

We did reach out to various people including LGBTQ+ in the Party and received no response other than the same ‘they are transphobic’. We have asked very senior people in the Party for their evidence and experience also. Let’s all push now for some clear statements.

So yeah going to the authority on trans issues, being told the organisations in question are transphobic apparently isn't enough clarity. 

I was also asked to share proof that the organisations were transphobic. I face enough of this whenever I do stand up for trans rights, it is an ongoing struggle for many of us on social media. But our party is clear on what constitutes transphobia. But if the chair of any part of our party (and I say this having chaired parts of it myself) can't do some basic research, ask some relevant people and then listen to their answers. Before going ahead and doing something anyway on behalf of that organisation or just exec (not quite clear which, if either), what hope is there?

This is a Saturday I have a two day weekend this week (which only happens 50% of the time). I was hoping for some self care this morning. Thanks to those who have helped provide care to me as I went through this tough time. I may write more on this latter but for now I am taking some time for myself.

My Resignation Letter from LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum)

 Dear [Secretary],

In light of the recent statement that you have posted in the LDCF website and on twitter I cannot in good conscience as a gay, liberal, Christian remain a member of Lib Dem Christian Forum.

The statement starts by saying the the LDCF has unanimously decided to sign the letter in support of LGB Alliance and FiLiA attending our conference. As a member of LDCF I was not consulted nor did I give authority for you or any member of the Executive to speak on my behalf to make this decision unanimous of the Forum, which I believe as a member includes me.

You talk about holding the right to debate in good tension. I am aware that I and other LGBT+ members of the LDCF have reached out to members of the LDCF exec in recent days about this matter. We have pointed out that the debate we have had with this associated with the LGB Alliance have been far from a good tension. I personally have been called homophobic, mysogynistic, a groomer, a pervert and other things during such "debate" with this group. 

There is no good tension between LGB Alliance and the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats that attack and bombard our twitter and our members and supporters at every chance.Sadly allowing them into our conference exhibition space where our LGBT+ Lib Dem stall is seen as a safe space is not acceptable. As a past member of the LGBT+ Exec who has seen people taking their first steps to "coming out" at our stall this is seriously put at risk by having such a group, which only last week was classed a hate group in Ireland, in close proximity.

It is with regret that after many years of LGBT+ members being welcomed and accepted as members of LDCF. Many years of me personally speaking to many LDCF exec members either at the LDCF or LGBT+ Lib Dem stalls at conference exhibition. I was under the impression that being LGBT+ was not contrary to membership of LDCF. The events of recent weeks make me now think differently. I no longer feel I can hold membership of the LDCF.

Please accept this letter as my immediate resignation from LDCF with immediate effect.

I shall be publishing this letter on my blog in at 10:30 this morning.

Update 28 Aug 12:22 The following was just posted on the LDCF Website

The LDCF statement about the 2022 Liberal Democrats Conference arrangements, which was first issued on Friday (26/8), has been taken down to allow the Forum time to consider further these issues and the responses to it. We recognise that some people have been upset and hurt by our statement. That was never our intention, and we are sorry.

I obviously will wait to hear of the outcome of the consideration that the LDCF Exec take on these issues.

Since I announced my resignation the wording of the statement on the DCF website has altered slightly but the essence is still the same.

I will be writing a follow up post later with more details and answering some of the questions that have arisen since I announced I would be pubishing this letter.

Is Giving Transphobes Access a Freedom of Speech Issue?

 So let's say that someone uses the argument that they want to give a transphobic organisation access to a space where are large number of LGBT+ members assembly biannually. Let us also assume that they believe this is a Freedom of Speech issue.

Firstly I would ask them to look at the organisation they are seeking to give that freedom of speech to, especially in relation to trans people. Do they use their freedom of speech to dead name trans people? Do they use their freedom of speech to insult, insinuate, libel and slander anybody who defend trans rights? Do they use their freedom of speech with responsibilty or do they echo the tropes that were used against LGB people in the 80s and 90s? 

If they do not use the freedom of speech they already have responsibly. If the LGBT+ members of a group are fearful of the repercussions of allowing such a group access to a space that they consider safe, for some the first space they feel safe to be genuinely themselves.

Then you have to question why you want to allow them freedom of speech amongst a group who believe that nobody shall be enslaved by conformity, where we champion the freedom, dignity and well being of individuals. Where we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, caste, heritage, class, religion or belief, age, disability, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.

If you want to sign a letter demanding that such a group is given access then ask yourself why are you a Liberal Democrat in light of what the preamble to our constitution states.

Lord Trimble 1944-2022

Not from from the little terraced house that my father grew up you will see Hands Across the Divide (pictured right). It is a statue that somes up the hope of peace not just in Londonderry/Derry but across the whole of Northern Ireland.

The two men who best summed up that reaching across the divide are probably John Hume from the city of Derry and David Trimble, who coincidently like me also comes from Bangor, indeed his family went to same church as my mother's family and he went to Sunday School along with her. A young David Trimble is actually pictured in the book about the centenary of the current building of Trinity Presbyterian Church as part of the team working to build the church halls.

However, it was building of something more amorphus than a structure that is still standing that will be Trimble's lasting legacy. It was through that reaching out that he formed a sense of purpose, an image of a peaceful future, a vision of a shared future and a pathway to acheiving that. The people had their say and overwhelmingly supported the agreement that the various parties agreed to. That is truly reaching across the divide, that is what a leader should aim for.

It is with sadness that following on from John Hume's death in 2020, David, Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey has passed away today. In 1998 the two men shared the Nobel Peace Prize and in his Nobel Speach David summed up the state of Northern Ireland poignantly when he said.

There are two traditions in Northern Ireland. There are two main religious denominations. But there is only one true moral denomination. And it wants peace.

Those words are as relevant today as they were back in 1998, more so, as once once again our Assembly is struggling to get up an running. Our politicians need to look as Trimble and Hume and Seamus Mallon who served as Deputy First Minister and the example they gave of working for everyone. Trimble took a lot of abuse from some within Unionism for reaching out to the Nationalist traditions, but the peace has held largely, the devolved Assembly and continued on with several periods of strife, but carries on mostly and the people want it to work.

He was one of the architects of something that many of us thought would never come to be. Even when his party and Hume's lost their prominence in their two communities, the two traditions continued to work together towards that peace.

Tonight the thoughts and prayers are many are rightfully with Lady Trimble and his family. In our tomorrows people in Northern Ireland need to reflect upon what Trimble and Hume helped to bring about and work towards enhancing that legacy to make it truly one moral denomication of working together for all.

David, Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey 15 Oct 1944 - 25 Jul 2022

Northern Ireland Protocol 101: From a Northern Irish Perspective

 I see that this morning John Redwood has tweeted:

There are a number of issue with this that many of us here in Northern Ireland take umbridge with. Firstly John is assuming that those conducting the interviews also understand the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the various subsequent agreements added to the original. You see this whole thing is complex and when in 1998 the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland voted to approve the Good Friday agreement they actually knew what they were voting for. It was written out in full and sent to every home. 

This of course contrasts to Brexit which there was never any clear plan of what it meant and the Conservative Government subsequently has been making up as it goes along. If John Redwood has read the GFA he would know how intertwined Northern Ireland, Ireland and indeed the EU institutions are within the agreement for a peaceful future for the island of Ireland. 

There were only 18 years from the GFA until the vote on Brexit but in that time things in Northern Ireland changed, for the better. Subsequently the people of Northern Ireland, who did know what was involved in the GFA actually voted against leaving the EU. There are number of reasons for that security, ease of access across the border, also realising how much interlinkage there is and that this would be threatened by an EU border stretching over 300 miles around Northern Ireland.

In these days of talk about energy security the fact that most of NI's gas and electricity is actually supplied from Ireland Her Majesty's Government threatening to get involved in some any sort of argument with the EU, by acting unilaterally is worrying.

The other issue that many of us have is that Redwood is saying what the Unionist community think of the protocol in relation to the GFA. By this he means the DUP and TUV rather that the Unionist community but why let convenient shorthand get in the way when making a point about having the facts. The fact that the DUP and TUV were opposed to much of the GFA and are using it to acheive their own ends and on this they seem to be pushing the button of consent. Consent of course that wasn't settled with the withdrawal from the EU in the first place. 

This wee pocket of the UK along with several others didn't consent to our exit from the EU and then the European Economic Area, for many of the reasons about supply of food, services energy etc. In fact since Brexit our supermarkets have had to replace some of their foodstuffs, which have been in short supply in Great Britain also, with some supplied from Ireland, thank you protocol. So the DUP playing the consent card and with holding their consent for the Assembly to form over an issue over which their monirity view was fed into the Tory Government's negotiating position ignores the greater issues and more largely held opinion.

The DUP stood in the recent election on their stance of the protocol as part of a five point plan. Since the election is appears that four of those points education, housing, health service and cost of living are not really important enough right now for them to work on. However, that didn't go down too well with the electorate they lost 6.7%* of their vote and 3 MLAs. Hardly a ringing endorsement for what they were pushing. Yet somehow their performance at this election is now not just enough to hold the majority of NI voters hostage but the entirity of the UK.

Does anyone else remember the Prime Minister saying his deal was oven ready? Incuding the Protocol which Johnson and the DUP said was better than Theresa May's deal.

Does anyone else remember their 2019 election pledge that there would be no more negotiation over Brexit?

Well here we are we have a Government arguing that the Protocol that they agreed to as part of the process is not fit for purpose and that if the EU will not renegotiate it they will unilaterally chnge or scrap it.

We live in strange and worrying times. Can someone in the Coservative Party please listen to the people of Northern Ireland who are not linked the DUP, TUV or Jamie Bryson (now that is a story for another time).

* I will note here that the TUV gained 5.1% but if you also add in the 1.7% that the net loss for the  unionist parties is still 3.3%

Cooking with Tories

 The latest trend I'm seeing from Conservative representatives is that if poor people knew how to cook properly they wouldn't be facing the cost of living crisis. The Tories that are saying this are clearly living in a High Looking down on the plebs with displeasure.

They have clearly never been in a situation where when you are paid the bare minimum you can get towards the end of a month and face a regular panic. You scrape together all the change you can find to maybe buy enough food, and basic provisions at that, to last until pay day. Or maybe it is to go unto your electric key or gas card for you prepayment meters, or maybe to see if you can afford to get to work. This is not a new occurance it is something I faced at times around 2008.

It was not caused my me not being able to cook. In fact I was not purchasing pre-cooked meals as it was cheaper to buy ingredients to cook. I had a selection of all the dried pulses you could imagine and ate a largely vegetarian diet as meat was so costly. In fact when I was forced to live like this I did spend longer before going to the shops working out how to balance my diet, and within my budget, that at times when I had more disposible income on which to life.

Currently the sitution is dire. There are people whose fuel bills have gone up so much that they are having to ask their energy companies for credit, which is actually debt, to tide them over. This they will have to repay and therefore there is a further hole in their weekly budgets.

There food shop is already going up and the fact that there are now more food banks across the UK than McDonalds restaurants should tell anyone looking at those figures that we are heading towards Dickensian disparities between the rich and the poor.

So Tory MPs telling people how to economise or that they don't know how to cook are not aware of how much scraping around people do when they live on the edge. Food does not get thrown out it is used up, somehow. Basics are there and yes sometimes there is survival with basic bread and basic baked beans. However, when even the prices of the stables, bread, pasta, cooking oil are all subject to price rises due to the war in Ukraine affecting supply, along with a removal of the cap on energy price rises, pay is not keeping up to costs.

Yet in the Queen's Speech provided yesterday there was no major statement about how to help those in need now, nor how to prevent more slipping into a poverty trap.