So Ed what about the LGBT Christians who feel marginalised?

Ed Miliband in his interview with Premier Christian Radio this week said:

"I want to say to people who feel that [marginalised] I'm sorry they feel that. 

"Part of being a tolerant society and the kind of society I believe in is that people of all faiths and none don't feel marginalised. 

 "Now that doesn't mean there aren't going to be disagreements, for example on equal marriage, but I think it's really important that Christians don't feel that. 

 "That they feel, not just comfortable in their faith, but comfortable that their faith is respected in our country.

"I think it's something you've got to work at and I think the only answer is dialogue and to listen." 

 But what about those of us who are LGBT Christians? Those who are open and either accepted or ostracised from their church, and those who are sitting in a closet in their pews.

Recently here in Northern Ireland we are hearing a lot about a so-called "conscience clause" but as far as equal (or same-sex) marriage goes there is a built-in conscience clause for people of faith. I should know as the wording "that wish to do so" came in a conversation in the early hours of the morning with Kieran Leach as we discussed how to deal with this in the motion to go before Scottish Liberal Democrat conference.

It was the phrase that was to allow those faith groups, including Christian ones that wanted to to carry out marriages of partners of the same sex, while at the same time not forcing others to do so. But just because a nation decides to allow people of the same-sex to marry in civil marriage and faith marriage where that has been allowed by the faith group, doesn't mean that people faith is not respected. Indeed that faith is still protected under the Equality Act, something that does come out of being a tolerant society.

But the question at times is where is the tolerant church, within that society?

Some churches, some denominations claim they are welcoming to LGBT people. But they place expectations and restrictions on them that nobody else is expected to met to feel accepted, and expectations and restrictions that too many LGBT members are bound to fail. Of course now it is possible (with the exception of Northern Ireland) for LGBT people to abstain from sex before marriage, as marriage is now possible for same-sex couples. But apparently even after that commitment to marriage that is not the point in some church rhetoric.

Some want that same-sex couple to be celibate. Some want them to break up that union. So the question is where is the love, where is the tolerance? Where are those churches' refusal to accept those that they themselves marginalise? And where is Ed Miliband's message to those LGBT people within the church who feel marginalised? Not just during this year but for many years past and still seemingly many more to come.

Ed Miliband and the quest for power

So Ed Miliband's big idea should he form the next government is to freeze fuel bills for 2 years until 2017.

A grand headline grabbing pledge, but it is doable?

Remember that Labour have been telling us for the last 5 years that this current financial crisis is a global situation that had nothing to do with their slack regulation of British banks. Or not spending all the taxation revenue on vanity projects rather than dealing with excesses in public budgets or dealing with improving infrastructure, indeed shipping spiraling debts on the public sector as a result of Private Finance Initiative funding.

So unto the next big idea. Most of our energy in 2015-17 will still come from oil fired power stations. The price of oil is not set by Westminster, but by global markets. So what if there is another war in the middle east that will affect oil prices once again. How would Ed Miliband deal with keeping everyone fuel costs as they are? How would he fund a pay freeze under such circumstances.

He has promised not to renationalise the energy providers, so how is he going to enforce a cost freeze on these companies? This is a very grey area, especially as some of the fuel companies that operate in the UK are not largely let alone wholly owned within the UK. Surely the only lever he could operate over costs would be the taxes he levies on fuel, but that would reduce the amount that ends up in the Government coffers.

I'm not even going to address the fact that our energy companies are saying they will only have 2% spare capacity come 2015 and will be needing to invest in infrastructure, a question mark over where that money would come from if they are loss making as a result of Ed's bright idea.

So is this a workable idea? Or is it just pie in the sky?

The Three Conference Speech Wordle Comparison

So David Cameron has just completed the cycle of leaders' conference speeches. So how do they compare as far as key words go here are the comparative Wordles

Nick Clegg

Main words

• people
• economy
• right
• Labour
• easy
• government
• every

Ed Miliband

Main words

• people
• values
• Britain
• country
• right
• change
• economy
• work

David Cameron

Main words

• people
• country
• get
• know
• back
• economy
• one

What sort of bargain is this "New Bargain"?

Calm down, calm down! It's only a bargain. A New Bargain

So Ed Miliband wants to offer us a new bargain. But what sort of bargain is he offering? The problem is that his speech today gave very little clue as to what that was. After all speech is cheap, quite the bargain really and if you can fill 55 minutes with platitudes and nothingness. Ok saying "something for something" and attacking one part of the opposition's approach to the NHS without ignoring that the other part is doing the sort of things you're saying you want to do.

So just what is a bargain:

noun

1.

an advantageous purchase, especially one acquired at less than the usual cost: The sale offered bargains galore.

2.

an agreement between parties settling what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction.

3.

such an agreement as affecting one of the parties: a losing bargain.

4.

something acquired by bargaining.

5.

Informal . an agreeable person, especially one who causes no trouble or difficulty (usually used in negativeconstructions): His boss is no bargain.

Well looking at part one above, is that code for the fact that as he said elsewhere in his speech that he wouldn't undo all of the cuts of the government. He also said that if the current government hadn't sorted out the deficit by the end of the term he would do so. Yet this seems odd as Labour and Ed were all saying that this was a global issue and not one that the current government should be taking measures to deal with themselves. Now forgive me for getting confused here, unlike the PPE that Miliband got from Cambridge I only have an Economics degree from Kingston. But surely either something is global and you can do nothing about it, or it is internal and you can promise to sort it out, surely it cannot be both!

Part two seems to go contrary to the Labour party saying this week that they are a party of principle. How can they have any give and take if they are sticking to their principles. Indeed wasn't this the issue they found themselves in last May. They didn't do any giving and were doing plenty of taking. The Lib Dem negotiating team said that the Labour team didn't seem to want to be in government anymore because they refused to discuss things, refused to give any ground. That led to the only sensible option being taking give and take between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. That is pluralistic politics something that surely a PPE first from Cambridge should have picked up on, if not him he maybe should have asked Douglas Alexander's sister Wendy about that.

The third definition talks about a losing bargain affecting one of the parties. If that is the sort of new bargain that Miliband is offering who is losing out? But surely if the principles have to stand there is no give and take, therefore who is it that will end up losing out? Maybe Labour themselves if they are unable to cope with a change in the landscape. Maybe the people the ones who lost their 10p tax rate, the pensioners who lost their indexed linked pension before the Lib Dems put it back in place, maybe those promised a working wage which may well be taxed like the so-called minimum wage that Labour brought in and taxed. Indeed it is the Lib Dems who are promising to make a living or minimum wage outside of tax. If it is the minimum it should be outside of direct tax, of course indirect taxes like VAT and duty may be accrued, but that may well be up to the individuals choice as far as possible.

The fourth definition talks about something acquired by bargaining. We've yet to find out what Labour are prepared to bargain with. Miliband talked about social housing, well increasing the competitiveness for it, but nothing about increasing the supply of it. How is this really going to benefit the people he talks about helping. He said that taxes were increased for the poorest, yet the tax threshold has been increased lifting thousands of the poorest out of tax. As I said above the minimum wage that is still taxed fails to live up to it's name, yet this is just what Labour did.

The final option may well define Miliband a person who causes no trouble or difficulty. Because without any substance he really isn;t going to cause any trouble. The Liberal Democrats have already proven to cause more trouble for the Conservatives that Labour seem prepared to do.

Maybe what Miliband was offering today was a plea bargin, he didn't quite get around to saying sorry, but he did say that Labour had over the years got a few things wrong. Maybe he is looking for a lesser charge to be brought against Labour.

We need a press watchdag with teeth not just a yap

We now are all well aware that self regulation of the Press has been a failure.

This morning both David Cameron and Ed Miliband this morning called on the Press Complaints Commission to be ditched.

The Prime Minister said:

"The PCC has failed. In this case [hacking] it was absent, ineffective and lacking in rigour. It lacks public confidence. We need a new system entirely."

While the Labour leader said:

"It failed to get to the bottom of the allegations about what happened at News International in 2009.

"Its chair admits she was lied to but could do nothing about it. It was established to be a watchdog. But it has been exposed as a toothless poodle.

It is time to put it out of its misery. The PCC has not worked. We need a new watchdog. There needs to be fundamental change."

The thing is many of us have known the problem with the PCC in the past, as indeed I have often blogged. It doesn't offer any real threat, it acts retrospectively and it is self-regulating, coming from the editors themselves shepherding their fellow editors.

Ed's call for a new watchdog misses the fact, what we have is a watchdog that has no bite. We need to give a bite, they have to be able to act quickly. Act not just at the behest of an individual wronged, as now, but in the interests of good, fair and just practise in reporting. It has lacked the rigour as the Prime Minister has said because the leaders of the big two parties have failed to come down hard on the papers and media tycoons, because they rely on these press barons to get their point across.

When Vince Cable said he was going to declare war on Murdoch, he was immediately removed from the front lines of his own department making a decision because the Prime Minister didn't want anyone with cajones to take on the media bosses to endanger his position, especially as his press advisor at the time was a former Murdoch employee.

Let's not shut down the PCC and create the PCC on Sunday that is a Murdoch trick. Let us turn the PCC into a body independent from the press, give it real powers to intervene and punish, whilst also allowing a free press, and allow it to act swiftly.

Six Votes In It: Ed Miliband's Margin of Victory

Because the Labour Leadership election is not down under one member one vote just how close was the final outcome. After all1.3% is a pretty close race. But all the talk of the Unions winning it for younger brother Ed need to be looked at in light of the six people who actually cost it for David.

My friend and once upon a time blogger Mark Thompson has actually done the maths.
With just 1.3% in it David only needed a 0.65% swing so from the smallest electorate making up 33.33% of the electorate that was the MPs and MEPs. Each of their votes counted as 0.1253% overall for the entire election. Five of them comes to just 0.6265% whereas six comes to the magic 0.7518% or but another way 50.1018% of the vote enough to have edged out his younger brother.

The Unions Anoint Ed

Well in the end it really was a nail biting finish. It was down to the fourth round of the ballot that decided the result between the Milibands. In the end it came down to:

MPs 53-47 to David;
Members 54-46 to David;
Unions 60-40 to Ed.

Overall Ed 50.65% David 49.35%

Yes I was doing the maths in my head before the result for David was declared first (how much of a geek am I?) even turning and saying it. I knew before that forty nine came out of the Chair of the NEC's mouth which Miliband brother was next in line. But the split is that he lost out in two of the three colleges. The members and MPs/MEPs were not behind him, but the Unions were.

However, Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were talking over round two declarations and most of round three to tell us that David Miliband was smiling and Ed was looking tense, before Nick 'declared' the result for David. My friend Helen Duffet posted a tweet 'Ed Miliband wins title of Labour's best pokerface. Watch 'im.'

So in honour of the new Labour leader's performance before the count was declared here's this.

Dear Daily Telegraph: The History of Splitting

The Daily Telegraph today has an article entitled 'The Liberals have a History of Splitting'.

It says that:

"Most Lib Dems chose Charles Kennedy as leader. Most chose Sir Menzies Campbell. Most chose Paddy Ashdown. And most have just chosen Simon Hughes to be the party's deputy leader."

Of course the last part in inaccurate as only the majority of Lib Dem MPs chose Simon as Deputy Leader. But the whole tenant of the argument is that over the last century only the Liberal had a tendency to split or splinter.

It ignores the fact that at the time that the Liberals split before the Nationalist Government the Labour party itself had split with the Independent Labour party opposing mobilisation during the First World War, the anti-war campaigner Ramsey MacDonald resigned as leader and Arthur Anderson took over. The same grouping would disaffiliate itself once more in 1932 under MacDonald. But in 1931 the Labour cabinet itself was split over spending and wage cuts split. It led to MacDonald and his keys allies resigning and setting up the National Government with the support of Tories and Liberals.In 1951 there was a split into the Gatskillite and Bevanite camps over the future direction of socialism.

Of course in 1981 there was a major split that led to the formation of a new party, whose successors would later go on to be in Government, that was of course the SDP. There followed the Militant tendency which led to a further split as some Labour MPs and members went off to the Socialist groups.

Which leads us on Ed Miliband telling us that Nick Clegg is betraying Liberal tradition and that he is actually a Tory. Now if ever there was a Government that had betrayed its own tradition it would be the Labour government of the last 13 years of which Ed was a part of in the later stages. As for betraying the Liberal tradition maybe Ed would like to define exactly what he means by that. There are a number of liberal ideologies all contained within the Liberal Democrats, so we are always coming to compromises on setting out policy and our stall.

He goes as far as calling Nick a Tory. Having read his thoughts on the future of Liberalism in the The Liberal Moment at about this time last year was able to ask questions a matter of hours after finishing reading it. I know he's not a Tory, but his is part of a Government that is largely occupied by Tories, therefore of course there will be more Conservative policies straight out of their manifesto than ours, but there are also a number of compromises on policies where than can be action.

Waking up this morning as I did in Conservative-free* Northern Ireland I don't fell like a Tory because of the coalition. Every upheaval that faces Miliband's party does seem to lead to another split. There are so many socialist parties in some parts of Scotland (esp Glasgow) that they are tripping over each other.

So Ed be careful throwing those stones about, there are dangers as always under the Labour party, just because you are being called the Bennite candidate is no need to go off in a huff.

* And Ulster Unionist at Westminster level.

Messers Ed Talking Balls Over Iraq

Is there a war going on?

Today Ed Balls said in the Telegraph that the war on Iraq was was "wrong" and "a mistake". Going on to say:

"We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives.

"Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong."

Ed Miliband told the Guardian the decision to go to war was taken "led to a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour" adding:

"I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here.

"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it."

You'd think there was a leadership election on or something. Oh yes there is.

Of course Balls was an advisor for Gordon Brown at the time of the invasion and is going to some lengths to try to distance himself from the decision that was backed by his then boss. Strange then that he also says if he had been an MP at the time he would have voted for the decision based on the evidence provided and at the same time saying:

"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war."

So on the information he was privy to he said we shouldn't have prosecuted the war yet at the same time says if he'd been elected he would have voted for it. Huh? Is it just me that finds that argument doesn't add up.

Miliband was in the states at the time unlike big brother David but said he had 'some very heated arguments' with Gordon Brown about it but decided it was better to fight for climate change from inside the cabinet. That would be fighting so hard that you couldn't even get the party to make Parliament cut their own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 as part of the 10:10 initiative that you said you supported in principle, right?

Well as the only two leadership candidates who weren't elected to the House of Commons at the time of the vote to go to war on Iraq these two may have been able to put a line under it. Sadly they failed to do that with their diversionary tactics.