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.

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.

The Wisdom of David Davis

In light of the Brexit Secretary's resignation this evening here are his sage words about referendums.

There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. 

House of Commons Debates (Hansard), 26 November 2002, column 201


I'm guessing he now knows what he is getting and is voting no. What about the rest of us?

Manning the barricades

Picture credit via Richard Morris

Apparently now it is not enough to merely obey the law to be tolerated by the Tories.

Speaking at the National Security Council today David Cameron said:

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'. 

"It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance."

Now my values are different from those of Tories and I have no doubt I will have grievances with them as they set about their own agenda. Indeed I already have over the Human Rights Act, snooper's charter and our role in Europe.

I like living in a passively tolerant society. It allows me to be a gay man for a start, what goes on behind my closed bedroom door is my own concern. Of course the Tories want to do away with that an keep my internet browsing history. As any fan of Avenue Q  knows the internet is really, really great...for porn. So  by keeping our internet browser history the Government would know that we find really, really great on t'Internet. So maybe what I get up to in my bedroom (or anyone else's bedroom) or other rooms for that matter may not be quite so much my own business as I would expect in a tolerant society.

We are celebrating the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta aka Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of the Liberties). The Tories seem to want to celebrate by taking away more of our liberties.

Equal Marriage was never just about gay rights

Apparently number 10 Downing Street are about to ignore overwhelming support to a public consultation and block opening the right to carry out marriage to humanist celebrants in England and Wales.

This would have brought England and Wales in line with Scotland where since 2005 humanists have been able to marry mixed sex couples. It would also put them at the forefront along with only USA and Australia in having humanists able to carry out marriage at all. It is a sign that those of use who were fighting for marriage equality were not only thinking about it as a gay rights issue.

Sadly the Conservatives in Westminster have already diluted some of the aspects that the Liberal Democrats recognised when we formed policy on marriage equality in 2010 with relation to transgender people, so this is an attack on the other thread of what we understood and vote for in relation to equal marriage.

You see equal marriage isn't only about allowing same-sex couples to marry. It was about those people who are transgender not having to divorce or dissolve an exisiting marriage or civil partnership and not losing the years that before now would not count while they transitioned if their partner remained with them. It is about expanding who can carry out marriages further than the established church, to other denominations and faiths to also include humanists in our society. It is also about opening civil partnerships to those of mixed gender who do not want a marriage but want civil protections for their partner in the event of their death, life, illness or creating new birth.

Equal marriage is not just a gay rights issue. It is an equality issue.

The Conservatives just think it is about ticking one box but actually it is deeper than that and I am proud to have been part of the process to seek to give that equality to others when it does not affect me directly.

Note: This is what differentiates a humanist wedding from a mere civil ceremony

Baker resignation reveals the difference between Lib Dems and Tories

So Liberal Democrat Norman Baker has announced tonight that he is resigning for his post as a Home Office Minister. His announcement in The Independent as to why is not just a broadside into Theresa May's Home Office but also the denouement of the differences between Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when it comes to policy.

He says:

"support for 'rational evidence-based policy' was in short supply at the top of her department."

And that it was like "walking through mud".

It probably came to a head with the report on drug use and punishment last week and comes ahead of the vote that could criminalise paying for sex later this week. Yet it has probably been stoked my the whole immigration debate and the jumping at ill-judged, knee-jerk, UKIP-appeasing policy announcements based on emotive exaggeration and not evidence in any shape or form.

So let me repeat that:

If you want evidence-based policy, not knee-jerk, emotive reactionary nonsense to appease party self interests you have to vote Lib Dem.

That is the lesson. Now you can look at the various policies that the coalition have brought in over the past four years you can see the origins of policy. Those that largely based on evidence such as free school meals increase educational success come from Liberal Democrats looking at the evidence. Things like the snooper's charter apart from being illiberal are largely unachievable because of the depths of the dark web.

Why would this be so? Well the way that policy is decided by the parties help. Conference decides Lib Dem policy so no matter what we debate there is some expert able to speak with authority, or even better they have been working on drafting the policy in the first place. As to who comes up with Conservative policy, there are probably a number of envelops floating around Whitehall have that been used for late night discussions to come up with something. But they just get announced, rarely get peer reviewed (if they do not in public before announcement), and if they are peer reviewed are in the words of a former leader "not for turning".

This is the mud into which Norman Baker has found himself. This is the mud that has snared up some of the Liberal Democrats liberalism, because most of all liberalism is often common sense. Why? Because it is evidence-based as to what is the right thing to do for everyone's individual best interests.

Red lines from Cameron's welfare changes

So David Cameron wants to ban anyone under 25 for claiming JSA or housing benefit. Well Dave, not every young person is in a benefited position where both their parents are still alive and that work is always going to be available to them, these are red lines over which I will not allow the Conservatives to cross.

When I graduated it was in the middle of the last recession. Banks had been laying off economics graduates who had experience, so how was I along with other economics graduates going to find work immediately. For five months I would have been classified as a NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) but it wasn't because I wanted to be, it was because there was a lack of options.

I needed the then unemployment benefit and housing benefit to be able to stay in the part of the country where I felt I was most likely to get work, London. I'd been to University there and my network of friends was there to help me through those tough times.

But then there were the friends of mine who were orphaned before they had even left secondary education. I know that their grandparents were still around but if they weren't how could they have survived trying to get an education without housing benefit?

There are also a whole range of LGBT young people who are kicked out of the family home as soon as they turn 16, or tell their parents. Again without access to things like housing benefit these young people will either stay at home in the closet living in fear or end up living on the streets. Or the young girls who get pregnant and instead of familial support are kicked out? Or those who get pregnant and leave to live with the child's father only to be abandoned?

Not everyone has the nice comfy start in life that David Cameron would like to have us all believe. Some of those benefits are lifelines to many for all manner of reasons. So unless Dave can guarantee full time employment, or immediate training for ANY young person as soon as they lose their job, for whatever reason, removing these benefits and access to them is wrong. It is enslaving young people to a conformity of expectation of a loving family.

Not every young person has a privileged Witney upbringing, in our inner cities, even in our suburban areas, and to be fair possibly even in Witney, things aren't always so rosy.

This is why the Conservatives cannot be trusted to build a Fairer Society. They are only interested in a Stronger Economy at all costs. Only the Liberal Democrats seek to build a Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society enabling every person to get on with life.

Theresa May the DUP heroine of the Century

So with Theresa May pledging to scrap the Human Rights Act and pull Europe out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) she has suddenly become the DUP's pin up girl (whether in kitten heels or bejeweled loafers). Why?

Well the DUP know that they can only go so long in using petitions of concern to block any further LGBT equality in Northern Ireland. Before too long somebody is going to take a case before the ECHR to be allowed to give blood, or to be able to adopt along with their partner of the same sex or heaven forbid get married, or have their same-sex marriage in the rest of the UK recognised. The pulling out of this across the UK would come as the DUPs salvation, Northern Ireland would be kept in the dark ages and the LGBT community here would end up going elsewhere like they did in the 60s and 70s to seek equality.

The reason I am saying this is that it was only through the ECHR that homosexuality was legalised in Northern Ireland in the Dudgeon v UK case. Civil Partnerships only came to Northern Ireland as the devolved powers were suspended at the time and we were back under direct rule. every other measure since has been blocked by the DUP. Take the UK out of the ECHR and the final level of appeal for Northern Ireland is the Supreme Court who are unlikely to want to dabble in the devolved powers under which equality legislation is determined.

Therefore Theresa may well as well put LGBT rights into suspended animation as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if the Tories return with a majority in 2015. It is unlikely that a Tory drafted replacement to a Human Rights act will allow for any challenge that may embarrass the DUP in the long term, just in case they ever need to rely on the votes of Northern Ireland's largest party in the future.

So this is definitely one step up with which I shall not put.

In response to Dorries and Burrowes

I could go into a long rant about the latest comments of Nadine Dorries and David Burrowes on the issue of equal marriage. But they basically hoist themselves by their own petards so easily this time.

First up is Enfield Southgate MP Burrowes, writing on ConservativeHome today he opines about next weeks third reading like this:

"the news that the issue of gay marriage is coming back to the Commons next week is like those Jaws film trailers. Just when you thought it was safe to return to a new Parliamentary session, focussing on the key issues facing the country, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill returns to infest MPs."

Surely in the 8 years he has been MP since beating the man who beat Portillo he will have noticed that all legislation goes through the process of three readings and votes in the House of Commons, if they pass the first and second reading of course.

So unlike the film Jaws this is how our Parliamentary democracy works week in week out. Just because you''ve voted against a bill twice (in the minority) doesn't make it into a horror movie franchise.

Next up Mid-Bedforshire's MP who carried out surgeries and voted in the jungle Nadine Dorries; who has recently had the Conservative whip restored. She was Tweeting away about Charles Moore's article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday including asking:

"If gay marriage bill takes sex out of marriage could a sister marry a sister to avoid inheritance tax?"

Now we don't allow brothers and sisters to marry at present, so I'll leave Nadine to work out that answer for herself. Maybe in a cockroach invested coffin simply for asking such a stupid question.

Remember Folks You Saw it here first

Facebook has just shown me this image....

Just remember folks you saw it here first and exclusive in 2010

Indeed here is the detail of what every Tax Payer will benefit from as of next April

We've been building a Stronger Economy and Fairer Society since 2010, and been promising it since long before that. We are delivering on what we and we alone promised in terms of fairer taxes to those hard working people.

Indeed here is what the Tories said about Income Tax in their 2010 manifesto:

Yes the Lib Dems in Government have given people 4 times more than the Tories promised them and lifted millions of the lowest paid, who can only work a few hours a week, out of paying Income Tax altogether. 

National Minimum Wage

"There should be a statutory level beneath which pay should not fall - with the minimum wage decided not on the basis of a rigid formula but according to the economic circumstances of the time and with the advice of an independent low pay commission, whose membership will include representatives of employers, including small business, and employees"

This was the promise as made in the Labour parties manifesto in 1997 to set up a National Minimum Wage Act (1998). It also said that:

"There must be minimum standards for the individual at work, including a minimum wage, within a flexible labour market. We need a sensible balance in industrial relations law - rights and duties go together."

The current level is below what independent sources call the living wage. But thanks to the increase in teh Income Tax personal threshold the wage is going further now than it ever did, indeed the Liberal Democrats have said they want to see the basic rate rise to match a full time minimum wage.

So therefore the talk earlier today that the minimum wage could be cut obviously led to a lot of  uproar and outrage. Until that is Number 10 were forced into making a statement saying it will not be cut.

So everything is rosy then?

Well not necessarily. Remember that promise that it will be set by an independent body. Well The Daily Telegraph said, "the Low Pay Commission which sets the wage has been told formally by ministers to consider the impact on “employment and the economy”, before agreeing future increases." So the possibility is there for a freeze.

However, considering that even the lowest paid civil servants are not subject to a pay freeze why are those that are earning even less going to be faced with the possibility? Inflation still exists. Therefore a freeze in the minimum wage means that those who are on it will be hit. It is already unfair that they are taxed on their minimum wage, but to then not link that wage to inflation is also unfair (even with the increase in personal allowance to £10,000 next April).

But while Labour did said that the minimum wage is not a fixed formula, it does have to fit into that model of rights and duties  forming a sensible balance in industrial relations law. So therefore is the pressure, if indeed it is pressure that the cabinet is placing on the Low Pay Commission as they renegotiate its remit to consider the impact on employment and economy should not be at the detriment of the employee.

If George Osborne is seen as giving with one hand with the personal allowance increase while at the other taking away with substantially sub inflationary increases in the minimum wage there really will be righteous anger. Of course the Conservatives opposed the National Minimum Wage in the first instance, but the Lib Dems who are their coalition partners were in favour and are looking to make it a better wage for those who are on it with our fairer tax promises. So I hope that they will wind in the worse aspects of these discussions with the Low Pay Commission.

Let's delay...until we might have a majority

Yeah that seems to be the approach of certain members of the Conservative party who delivered a letter to the Prime Minister today calling for a delay on the vote on marriage equality. Maybe they are finding themselves like Indiana Jones at the start of The Temple of Doom faced with a giant boulder that has gained too much momentum that they cannot stop it.

The momentum behind the boulder is public opinion, including that which was expressed in the consultation. Many of those who expressed an opinion, as opposed to merely signing a petition that they were against period, said that the constraints on religious freedom by not allowing faith groups that wanted to to carry out same sex-marriage was an error in the proposals. That is why the Government came up with a proposal more in line with Lib Dem policy (with the exception of the truly equal transgender elements).

You see unlike the larger party in Government this has been debated my the Lib Dems, our MPs really have heard the grass roots opinion of the leadership. They have heard some people of faith opposing the policy, but they also heard many who were in favour.

They used to say that the Church of England was the Conservative Party at prayer, but with the Church of England being one of the strongest voices opposed to marriage equality it is true that we see that link still present. The Church have tried every trick in the book to oppose marriage equality, from saying that allowing it would prevent them maintaining their status as the state church, to which many said that isn't such a sacrifice for the rest of us. Some of the language, and indeed lies, that has come from Church leaders makes one wonder just which parts of the bible they adhere to as it certainly isn't love or telling the truth that seems utmost in their minds.

So is the last roll of the dice to try and delay legislation until after the general election? Is this in the hope that conservative Conservatives may end up in a majority of the house? Is it a delay to try and show that there is no mandate for this? If so is that not a matter of the giant boulder heading towards them which cannot be stopped? The fact is that latest predictions show at least 55% of the House of Commons in favour of The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill so in a representative democracy likes ours it appears that our representatives have already made up their mind on this one.

If they were successful in getting it delayed one thing is certain. No young person who weren't aware of the Conservative's support of Section 28, will trust them for a while on delivering LGBT equality, personally I think that is something that David Cameron is determined that his party will not set themselves back to.

I don't need encouraged to marry

On the news today I heard a Conservative MP said "We should be encouraging people to marry, through the tax system".

Now I don't know about anybody else but I certainly don't look across the room and see someone and think, "Wow! That person is my ticket to a tax break." But then maybe this is only an attitude for millionaires who can afford a private accountant and one day harbour hopes of safe seat in the Lords for live after a few terms as a Conservative MP.

I know it is not something that any of those seeking marriage equality have placed high on their agenda. The married man's tax allowance, (yes note it was only available to the man) was discontinued in 2000, therefore over 5 years before same-sex couples were even allowed to have a legal recognised relationship status. Those of us who want marriage equality want it on the grounds of equality, but seeing as we have been denied equality for so long we don't what that equality to disadvantage others.

You see there would have been men in the past who would have lost their married man's allowance if their wife had run off with someone else, they may even have had to pay maintenance for their children. By talking about men and unfaithful women I am not being sexist, merely because there was no married women's allowance the women were already losing out, if they were the larger earner, this is merely a statement of fact. Also widows and widowers would have lost out on the marriage allowance at that vulnerable time at which they lost a loved one. So if you'd looked across the room and seen the tax break of your life, you would have lost it when death parted you.

You see above how mecahnical and clinical a married persons allowance is. There are those that claim that the marriage tax allowance is to support those who are the worse off in our society. But bear in mind that a married couple will have two incomes to pay all the bills, it it those who are single, who don't have the extra buying power to lay down a mortgage and are living in rental accommodation who are actually those most in need of a tax break when times are tough economically. So what are the Government doing about that?

Well actually they will be increasing the personal individual's tax allowance to £9205, this is up from the £6,475 that it was at the time of the General Election. That gives a married couple (or in fact any couple) a tax break of  almost £5,500 in the last three years. Almost giving them a whole other person's personal allowance over what was available to them on 6 May 2010.

So the arguments about encouraging people to stay get together in marriage to help the worse off is a fallacy, everyone is better off, £2,730 of their income has been lifted out of income tax. The result is that they are paying £600 a year less in tax (£1,200 for any couple where both earn over the threshold and less that the higher band).

People are not to be encouraged to stay married because they have a tax break, there was divorce in this country before 2000. People are not going to be encouraged to get married simply to have a little extra money in their pocket. People get married for one reason only, love. That is also the reason that we need marriage equality to recognise that love that a couple have for each other, a love that is the same whatever the make up of that couple.

Tax breaks neither make nor break marriages. Love is love and equality is needed for that love. When you call something by a different name it is not recognising it as the same thing.

Following Sir Edward Garnier's logic I shall call my car a bicycle

According to the logic of former Solicitor General Sir Edward Garnier MP QC for the constituency of Harborough I shall call my car a bicycle but there is no need to change the law as a result.

Under the logic as I own a car bicycle I shall not be subject to road tax for my car bicycle. My car bicycle will still transport me from point A to B. As I now travel in on my car bicycle to work though I shall not be allowed to travel on the motorways, but I will have access to the excellent cycle path alongside the M5 from the Harbour Estate to Whiteabbey. As I am driving riding along in on my car bicycle seeing the other drivers cyclists scurrying for cover as I hurtle gently pedal along I know that I am fully within my rights.

My next car bicycle

I am a bit concerned that I shall have to purchase a helmet to wear in on my car bicycle, but at least I do not have to wear a seatbelt. I do not need to renew my driving license as from now on I will be driving riding my car bicycle everywhere, including to the filling station (merely to buy my papers you understand).

Of course me calling my car a bicycle is ridiculous, nobody else will see my car as a bicycle. When it comes to legality certainly the police would not take too kindly to me flaunting the law of the land by claiming that I am a cyclist from the comfort of my driving seat. When it comes to people of the same sex referring to their civil partnership as marriage and their other half as their husband or wife instead of their civil partner it is still not the same thing. On forms they fill in they cannot tick the box for married and sign the bottom that all information is correct if in fact they are civil partnered and that box is left unchecked.

So if Sir Edward Garnier is happy for same-sex couple to call themselves married why is he not prepared to equalise it in the eyes of the law?

Fisking some of 118 Tory MPs on Marriage Equality

So the Daily Fail (apologies for this link) are naming 118 Tory MPs who are liable to vote against marriage equality, in the biggest sign of just how much the Conservative party haven't changed on LGBT issues since the last time Westminster voted on any.

So I shall fisk in red each of the statements from those quoted:

"I Marvel at why we're bringing this forward. There is no clamour for this at all within the gay community." Conor Burns - Bournemouth West

I've already dealt with the Belfast born, gay, MP's comments earlier (see here) 

"I believe marriage is an institution ordained to sanctify a union between a man and a woman. If a vote is called, I shall vote in accordance to my beliefs." David Jones - Clwyd West

I need to define a couple of words to start this so the free dictionary says:

or·dain  
tr.v.

1.

a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.

b. To authorize as a rabbi.

2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.

3. To prearrange unalterably

sanc·ti·fy  

tr.v. 

1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.

2. To make holy; purify.

3. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow.

4. To give social or moral sanction to.

5. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

Yeah you get that, both words have significant religious connotations. So for something to be ordained to sanctify something surely it has to be religious. So would Mr Jones be voting, if there one called to do away with civil marriage?

"I share the view of a great many Christians and people of other faiths who have a strong conception of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When it comes to redefining the concept of marriage in law, I don't think that Parliament should seek to alter the current position." Stephen Crabb - Preseli Pembrokeshire

Time for another definition:

 Conception
n.

1.

a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.

 
2.

a. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.

b. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought.

I take it he refers to the latter. So it is only an understanding of a mental concept. Like once we thought the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, we mocked Einstein's theory of relativity, or continental drift. So see out conception of so much has changed as our understanding has grown. The last two of those in the last hundred years and indeed at the same time that we were actually coming to terms that gay sex should be allowed. Conceptions change and unlike Mr Burns Mr Crabb doesn't say that everyone is of the same opinion I know a number of people of faith Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Straight who all want to allow faith groups that want to to carry out same sex marriage. They have a different concept of marriage yet the same faith.

"I remain concerned that re-defining marriage is unnecessary given the established legal rights, which effectively mirror marriage, for same-sex couples through civil partnerships." Esther McVey - Wirral West

If something were effectively giving a true representation of something else in mirroring it everything would be the same. We would have civil and religious ceremonies, of course we don't. We have the legal rights but only one of the options is open. Any same-sex couple of faith has to leave their god, favourite Hymns of religious passages at the door if they want to be joined in civil partnership. 

"I think there is something a little arrogant about ministers supposing that it is for them to redefine communal rules that have existed for centuries." Douglas Carswell - Clacton

First off this is going to a vote in the commons the ministers aren't doing it without the representatives of the people having a say, isn't that the way our parliament works. Second there are some rather ridiculous and outmoded communal rules still on the statute book, that is the point that the Lib Dems raised in the General Election a Great Repeal Act to do away with some of them, some of them have been around for centuries and serve no purpose in the 21st Century. This is being taken forward by Government, how arrogant of them!

 "People's private lives are a matter for them. Marriage on the other hand is not an entirely private matter. It is a civil institution.

"If, as I hope, there is a free vote in Parliament on this  issue as it is a matter of conscience, I shall be voting against the law to introduce marriage between homosexuals." John Hayes - South Holland and the Deepings

 I agree with the first paragraph of the above. The first sentence being key. It is a matter for each individual, no body else marriage impinges on the marriage of anyone else. It is a civil institution. 

James Wharton  - Stockport South "unique religious connotation of marriage"

I refer you to the answer I gave to David Jones, there are such things as civil marriage. These have not hindered people of faith having religious marriages, they have merely allowed those that don't adhere to a faith to get married without making oaths before a god they do not believe in (or maybe just share or doesn't look kindly of their divorce).

"As a Christian, I am only too aware of the controversies, not only surrounding this issue but others to do with equality.

"While I fully support civil partnerships, which I believe allows two gay people to declare their lifelong commitment to each other, I am afraid that at this stage, the concept of gay marriage [sic] is too much in advance of public opinion and I am afraid that I would not support it in a vote in the commons." Simon Burns - Chelmsford

also

"I shall almost certainly be voting against any proposal to bring forward gay marriage. I do not consider myself to be homophobic, but, apart from anything else I do not think there is any demand for this." Andrew Robothan - Blaby

I'm afraid to tell Mr Burns that there is only one recent opinion poll that shows public opinion that anyone claims is against "marriage equality". That was when Catholic Voice  but didn't actually ask a question about expanding marriage yet was used to claim that 70% of people objected to it. As for Mr Rothbothan similarly deciding something purely on demand while very free market in outlook, fails on the basis that there obviously is some demand or else it would have got this far.

I believe that Parliamentary legislation should focus on those issues that matter to most people across the country: safeguarding their well-being and restoring the economy to health." Andrew Tyrie - Chichester

Strangley at the end of last month Mr Tyrie who is chairman of the Treasury Select Committee found time to vote on the issue of circus animal wellfare. Of course due his his committee chairmanship most of his utterances in the House have been on economic matters, but of course Parliament does talk about other things, and as I have mentioned before even during the war other things were discussed rather than just war related business.

"I wish it were not happening...don't try and tamper with the timeless concept and meaning of marriage, which for most of us means one man and one woman."

Well if marriage's definition is so timeless how come the bible had so many ways to define it.

 

 Update: Interestingly the Daily Mail have removed Conor Burns and a full list of names from its article.

Ostrich MP for Bournemouth on Marriage Equality

Everyone has the right to their own opinion. That is why I don't object to politicians saying they are not in favour of equal marriage (at least you know where they stand) or say they see no need for it (there is room to show them there is a need).

I do not even mind when the politician who says such things is LGB. Not everyone who is gay wants to get married anymore than everyone who is straight. Indeed someone like Rupert Everett clearly dispises the who institution.

What I do not have time for though is politicians who say that the reason they do not support equal marriage is because there is no clamour or demand for it. That is clearly not the case or else the churches wouldn't be so strongly on the offensive to try and coral those Christian soldiers that they can in the defense of 'traditional marriage'.

Therefore I am bemused and upset when a gay politician says:

"I marvel at why we’re bringing this forward; there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community."*

I see no clamour for marriage equality - Conor Burns MP

That politician is the Ulster-born Conservative MP for Bournemouth West, Alderney and Branksome East Conor Burns.

Now I know that being an MP is a busy task and Mr Burns may not be spending a great deal of time out clubbing in the gay clubs in Bournemouth in his constituency, or the ones near this weekday office in London. But surely he can be abreast of the call from his own party's LGBTory group.

This morning on their website their lead story is  Why lobbying our MPs on equal marriage is absolutely vital. Ouch! Rather embarressing for an MP saying that there is no clamour for equal marriage within the gay [sic] community when his own party LGBT group are saying this is vital stating:

"It is vital that we speak out, because otherwise, those who would rather lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people did not exist, or those who believe that a particular religious definition of marriage is the only one, could well, in their minority, see a great victory, regardless of whether they achieve their ultimate aim of defeating these legislative proposals."

Clearly Mr Burns needs to heed that message from those within his own party.

No maybe as he was talking to a Northern Irish paper he was meaning there was no clamour in the LGBT community here for equal marriage. Strange then that on the day it was debated in Stormont (1 October) I didn't spot Mr Burns at the front of Parliament buildings when campaigners for Equal Marriage including many from the gay community were demonstrating in favour of the motion up for debate. Joined by MLAs from the Green Party, Sinn Féin, Alliance, SDLP and UUP to talk about why they were supporting it. Nor was he in the public gallery during the debate when there were many from the LGBT community there to listen to the MLAs debate the issue below them.

It can hardly be called no clamour when we were present on the steps and in the public gallery for the first debate on a home grown motion on LGBT issues.

So maybe the Ostrich representing Bournemouth West, Alderney and Branksome East should take his head out of the sand. See and here what the LGBT community even within his own party are saying on the issue of marriage equality realise that there is a demand for it and just be honest saying that he is not in support for his own personal reasons.


* For the record, the full quote from Mr Burns on the introduction of legislation on equal civil marriage is:

"I marvel at why we're bringing this forward; there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community.

"I'm very concerned – and I'm going to need some serious convincing about this – that while the Human Rights Act remains in place we cannot give the guarantees that I would want to see that churches would not ultimately be forced under human rights legislation to conduct such ceremonies.

"I would want, if this bill becomes law, cast iron guarantees that any religious organisation who on religious grounds object to it would not ultimately be compelled to do that.

"And at the moment, given that the Prime Minister came to the House of Commons and said it made him feel physically sick that prisoners would get the vote but there was nothing he could do about it because of that law, that law’s still in place.

"So how can we have those guarantees? Until those guarantees are in place, I have massive reservations."

Yeah I could have said so much about the fact that people who have done nothing wrong apart from fall in love with someone of the same gender are being compared to prisoners by Mr Burns but there is enough in how he starts out on this line of thought to be going on with.

Conform or else no job for you - Osborne

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

"We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly" Two extracts from the Preamble to the Liberal Democrats Constitution

How then do we find ourself in coalition with a Chancellor who is offering to lift employment rights for new employees in return for share options?

As someone who is currently seeking work I don't want to have as a question in interview:

"If you were to be offered this job would you be willing to do without employee rights in return for some shares?"

Maybe it is because I am an economics graduate who knows that share values are only of value while there is a solvent company behind them. Or maybe it is because many of my former colleagues in The Signet Group were tied into share bonuses while the company's share price plummeted.But mostly it is because as a Liberal Democrat I do not want any individual to be trampled over in the name of business. Those rights are there to protect not only the employee but the employer.

We are looking at a large number of people who are unemployed. Every job I currently apply for is heavily over subscribed so even being called to interview is a rarity. So how would I, or someone less tuned in to their rights and how shares work going to respond if they were asked that question? They are likely to be given the job, those of us who do not want to waive our employment rights will be shunted to the end of any list when it comes to awarding the job. We would be made unemployable as there might be someone out there who is prepared to take the shares and give the employer permission to do whatever they want them to do.

If we as a party do not believe that people should be enslaved by conformity, this new option may end up leading to those that do not want to conform to Osborne's ideal being enslaved to poverty being unable to find work as they will not take the shares.

There are arguments going around in senior Lib Dem circles that this is only voluntary and nothing to worry about. How can they be so blind? Employers will make it appear voluntary but take the option that best suits them, ie those that agree to waive their rights. The pressure will be applied to return us all to Victorian working practices ie that the employer has all the rights and the employees none.

We need to stop Osborne from making this ridiculously backward step. We need to not be distracted by the voluntary language that is being used. We need to stand up for the individual, every individual and protect tehir employment rights as it is clear that the Conservative Party are not going to even hide that they don't want to.

Dear Lord Carey reach for your dictionary

So at the Coalition for Marriage rally on the fringe of the Conservative Party conference the former Archbishop of Canterbury resorted to inferring many involved in the campaign for equal marriage Nazis including the Deputy Prime Minister. He seems to have lost the plot as well as the dictionary when he said in response to the press release that was retracted by Nick Clegg over the word bigot he said:

"Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names. Let us remember the Jews in Nazi Germany. What started against them was when they started to be called names.

"And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state. We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way."

Apart from the fact that Lord Carey, like so many others, forgets that the Holocaust included not just the Jews but the gays, there is also the mistaking of what totalitarianism is especially in light of how equal marriage is being discussed and introduced here across the UK.

Now a dictionary definition:

to·tal·i·tar·i·an  (t-tl-târ-n) 

adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed from the Free Dictionary

So let me get this straight. Those wanting legislation that allows everyone the right to marry in a civil manner and allows the religious groups that want to do so to also carry out same sex marriage is totalitarian. Isn't treasuring that Christian inheritance to the extent of imposing your will as the only way just that. They have used words such as unnatural, not traditional against same sex marriages. And indeed in the recent debate in Stormont politicians said the idea was 'greedy', in it for 'temporary gain', a threat to 'civil and religious liberties', 'pointless', a 'worthless course', a 'slippery slope'.

The sensible debate about this is that there are some religious groups in this nation that are prepared to carry out same-sex marriages. What has been proposed for England & Wales, in Scotland and was debated here in Northern Ireland was the lifting of the States prohibition on marriage being between a man and a woman only. There was no lifting of the number of people nor the inclusion of a creature of another species in the TWO that would be married. Also in none of the three places this is being discussed is there any requirement on religious groups to carry it out, that is left to the governance of those religious groups separately.

So far from being totalitarian the equal marriage proposals are not centralising all control on this issue.

• Each religious groups governing body is free to make up its own mind. 
•  Religious freedom is not being suppressed either by the state or by any other branch of religion. 
• Individuals are not being coerced into whom they can marry although the opposite is true as Michelle McIlveen stated during her speech in Stormont:

"Moreover, everyone is free to choose to marry.  There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex."

• Gay people of faith have the right to invite their deity into a marriage which they cannot do in a civil partnership again no suppression of civil or cultural expression

So just who is totalitarian?

• The Church is seeking control on civil society
• It wants outright control on marriage something it hasn't had since civil marriage was allowed outside of the Anglican Church
• The individual is subordinate to the Churches teachings even those that do not follow those teachings or who view them in a different light
• Opposing political views, even if they allow the churches views freedom, are to be blocked at all costs

Cameron the Undeliverer - Is it time for Lib Dems to walk from Coalition?

So David Cameron is to drop Lord's Reform because he is unable to get the legislation past his backbenchers. There are also rumours about a similar thing has been happening to some other policies that are within the coalition agreement.

Now I'm not going to go into an argument here about how the Reform of the Lords is 100 years overdue, but its dropping is a catalyst to another story. I'm sure that Nick Clegg had a tough time with his backbenchers on issues such as Tuition Fees, Welfare Reform, the NHS and other issues. But by in large he has delivered those votes in the lobbies when it mattered, because when David Cameron said on the steps of Downing Street in May 2010 "We're all in this together" the Lib Dems accepted that.

The Conservative backbenchers seem to have forgotten that missive, they also seem to have forgotten that they did not win a majority back then and that a lot of the stuff that they wanted the Lib Dems have helped make happen at great cost to our membership, our vote and some say our political integrity. The last is a dubious point though. Yes we went into the election with a manifesto as did other parties. But when nobody could form a majority we entered negotiations with both the main parties to try and work out how we could help the country in that hour of need.

So a new document of intent was drawn up, the Coalition Agreement*. Now on political integrity to that the Lib Dems have been holding firm, but the Conservatives have been meandering, dropping parts of that here or there or publicly talking about how they will block the overtly liberal elements of it.

That shows weak leadership from Cameron and his whips office. That shows that he has lost control of his part of this coalition. It makes me wonder should the Lib Dems now just walk away from this Coalition and let Cameron have his way.

Of course then he will find it hard to get the majority he needs. There will still be rebels in his own party, bizarrely there always are in the blue corner of the green benches. But he wouldn't even have a majority in the first place.

The problem is would leaving a lame duck Prime Minister and a powerless administration for the next three years (we do after all have the Fixed Term Parliament Act) be good for the country?

No it wouldn't.

Would the country appreciate the Lib Dems maintaining their political integrity while watching Osborne burn trying to get any economic package through a minority House of Commons who disagree?

I seriously doubt it.

So the Lib Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place. We have a weak Prime Minister who is unable to deliver the liberal parts of the agreement, while we help deliver parts whichgo away or are opposed to Lib Dem policies, all the while looking like sell out, but not as big sell outs if we walk away now.

So it is time for David Cameron to step up, not step away. He has to forge ahead with the Coalition agreement implementation in the same way that Nick Clegg does. If he continues to be be unable to deliver, then we will have to look again at walking away.

Update Now I have already had some reactions that Lord's Reform was not in the Agreement, actually it was and it also was a Conservative manifesto pledge. The wording in the agreement is:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

This looks largely to be what is in the Lords Reform Bill without the finer details worked out, which during 5 days of discussion was a matter that clearly there was some agreement in principle but not time to dot all the Is or cross all the Ts.

* Page 27 does mention Lord's reform and talk about bringing forward proposals after looking at it, largely in line with the Bill, because ALL parties were in agreement about the need in their manifestos.