Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer

Andrew Rawnsely in today's Observer on his advice to GB. Though other commentators and Rawnsley himself has said this before.

Piece is titled Gordon's best - and only - bet now is to be bold.

Some quotes:

There is now only one potentially winning strategy left to Gordon Brown. Paradoxically, that is to start governing on the assumption that he is going to lose the next general election. He should give up trying to please everyone, not least because he is no good at pleasing anyone at the moment, and concentrate his energies on achieving a few important things that he believes in.

I heard a matching critique from a cabinet minister who is usually regarded as extremely close to Mr Brown. 'He's got to break free. He's got to throw off some of the bonds,' says this minister. 'He's got to be himself. He's got to say what he believes, act on it and fight for it.'

Take that advice and at least the Prime Minister would regain his self-respect. Over time, he may begin to win back the respect of the voters too. Governing on the basis that he's lost is now his last, best hope of winning.

Riga Pride 2008

Video of event by Amnesty

Particularly moving to see the bravery of those marching in the midst of a wall of hate (including obligatory placards with Bible verses - do they know ugly their religion is?).

From Pink News (2/6/2008):

A march for gay rights has passed off peacefully in the Latvian capital Riga.

Police arrested four of an estimated 400 anti-gay protesters, but the threats of violence against the Pride march did not materialise.

British and Swedish human rights advocates and politicians were among the 300 people who took part in the event on Saturday. City authorities closed off streets and deployed police to keep the groups apart.

Derek Draper (!) comes to Gordon's aid

In today's Guardian , Derek Draper (sometime new Labour spin doctor - though not a very good one and now some kind of psychotherapist - more of which later) gives his view that we are currently living through an exaggerated 'crowd' response to Gordon Brown's difficulties, where he is getting blamed in an exaggerated way for the international economic shocks (triple whammy of banking crisis, oil shock, food price hike - and none of the government's making).

Behind the relentless criticism lies the more balanced truth: That, sure, Brown has made mistakes but that the main source of his unpopularity is that people blame him for the economic downturn. He is hoping that he will receive reciprocal credit for any subsequent recovery. In the meantime something akin to mass hysteria has gripped the nation.

In other words the best antidote is for Brown to exhibit those characteristics he most possesses: being solid, steadfast and serious. Not flash, as the slogan put it - just Gordon. If he soldiers on I suspect that people will begin to realise that the current negativity is out of proportion and that he deserves a more balanced judgment.

At a pivotal moment in the West Wing, the administration's disastrous poll slide is arrested by the simple strategy, scrawled on a napkin by an aide, of "letting Bartlet be Bartlet". Brown's best bet is to follow the spirit of this advice. Be himself, relax, let people get to know him more with all his flaws and eccentricities, take the brickbats with good humour and wait for the tide of opinion to turn.

It makes good sense and if there is a recovery (seems the banking crisis has already settled down) then Brown's ratings are likely to recover.

I think this is only partly correct. There's something odd about the conjunction between democracy and capitalism.

Capitalist economies are like the shares that distinguish them - they go down as well as up. When running for office, parties exaggerate what's going wrong with the economy and exaggerate what they can do about it. When in power they either say they're still cleaning up the mess left by the last lot or that they're suffering under international shocks over which they have no control.

In the midst of all of this the most likely scenario is that governments take credit for successful economies and take the rap for economic difficulties (you have to be able to blame 'someone' for what's going wrong).

Correct diagnosis is of course the key and then you have to sell it persuade people of your view. It's easier if you can demonstrate our economy is doing better than everyone else's. But many people have a magical view of the economy that if there is something wrong in the economy the current government is to blame.

I think we underestimate how severe an economic shock is hitting us at the moment. Gordon's genius so far has been to avoid wild excesses (no more boom and bust) which has kept us out of recession and kept growth solid. Is this transient bumpiness or the beginning of a new economic dispensation?

Martin Kettle has some similar thoughts in today's Guardian The false rhinoceros...

But the greatest collective hypocrisy of our time remains the state of the economy. Indisputably, times are harder than they were. Undeniably, big changes in global financial power are afoot. Yes, growth is faltering, nerves are stretching and politicians are struggling to strike a persuasive note after surfing a long period of rising prosperity. But be honest: is this biting economic distress of the sort that traumatises families, communities and whole generations in the way that the convulsions of the 1930s or the 1980s did? Not yet it isn't.

When I read on yesterday's front pages that a family of four planning a summer holiday trip to the west coast of America, a place which their parents could never have dreamed of visiting, will suffer the "misery" of paying an extra £240 surcharge for the privilege, I wonder who is more deluded, the politicians or the people? And I ask myself what kind of rhinoceros we think we are looking at.

Freedom of expression under threat

Increasing concern about latest developments in Turkey where the State via a Court case has ordered Turkey's only gay rights group to be dissolved, with comments by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly expressing worries over freedom of expression.

Riga Pride Tomorrow

Coverage from Pink News about planned opposition to the planned Riga Pride.

Opposition seems mainly to be coming from two sources - from ultra right nationalists and the Roman Catholic Church.

The event is due to take place tomorrow. Significant support comes from Amnesty International and different LGBT groups within the EU.

It is a key test for the principles of freedom of assembly and expression along with other Pride events within the EU coming as they do after the events in Moldova this year.

A further roundup from Amnesty here.

Also a report from ILGA-Europe about Bucharest Pride which passed peacefully.

We need a new Government

I think the Labour Government is now in serious difficulty and in need of a profound overhaul.

I may be the last person in the country to catch up on this piece of stunning news but then again I am a loyal member of the Party and generally see things sunny side up.

Where's the sun now?? Are we going to have a death by a thousand concessions from now until the election?

I hope not.

The question of keeping the current leader is finely balanced but surely relates to whether the current incumbent has a dynamic vision for the country.

Now I am sure Gordon Brown does have such a vision but there has been a lot of populism and positioning and ultimately it ain't going to work.

The country is clearly tired of what Labour is offering and there is a need for renewal. Of course economic turbulence hasn't helped either but that won't cut much ice at the ballot box.

There are lots of candidates for what the Mirror today describes as 'spring cleaning' (the Guardian has its own list) that will allow the Government to be refreshed.

These include things like ID cards and 42 days detention as starters for 10.

Brown should certainly ask himself 'If I am only Prime Minister for two more years, what would I like to have achieved?'.

There are doubtless other policy changes as well and there needs to be some big things - headline grabbers if you will (housing, welfare etc) with headline grabbing politicians to front it up.

All this is doable but policy alone won't do it. We also need to shake up the team a bit (a lot).

Things like a Party Chair, a new Chancellor etc, put Miliband in somewhere prominent, appoint a Deputy Prime Minister (possibly Miliband). The thing is it needs to look like a new refreshed team.

Gordon Brown is a very thorough kind of guy so he may already be working on some such package. I certainly hope so, because a Party that keeps defenestrating its leaders doesn't do itself any favours in the long run (to lose one Prime Minister is a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness).

Doubt over Russian blood ban move

This recently reported on Pink News and also on the Gay Russia website.

I, however, remain unconvinced. In such cases I follow the biblical rule of requiring 3 independent witnesses and here we have a lot of websites reporting from each other. There is no official confirmation (although to be honest, my Russian isn't as good as it should be so I might be missing Russian reporting of it).

It is being reported that it took only 2 years of campaigning (from I can tell this consisted of a few letters to the Health Ministry and an attempted - and outlawed - demonstration) to get the ban overturned.

This is being reported to be Russia 'setting a good example' to Western European countries. Hmmm.

It is also reported that the ban on prostitutes and drug users is also being lifted. Maybe there was a campaign by drug users and prostitutes to get their respective bans lifted as well. If so it has been very effective.

It's all a bit incongruous so I am not ready to believe it until I see independent confirmation.

Meanwhile our enemies on the religious right have also picked up on the news and are using it as a stick to beat us with, with a very interesting (and credible) statistic (from the FDA in the US) that MSN are 800 times greater risk of being HIV positive than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher risk than repeat donors.

LGBT Labour AGM

Whilst the Party is going through a tough time, LGBT Labour held its annual AGM yesterday in London. In spite of current difficulties it was an upbeat event, showing we are still focused on the goal for equality.

There was plenty of discussion and debate about priorities.

I was pleased by a number of things:

- the new National Committee has quite a few new members, alot of people in different posts (a kind of reshuffle if you will) and the largest number of women (8 by my calculation) in the NC that I can remember.
- a good debate on policy issues, in particular a woman's right to choose (making sure we supprot it from further attacks)
- a good debate on international issues, including an agreement to affiliate to ILGA.
- really good turnout - again alot more women than in previous years

I was also absolutely delighted to see Louise elected as our International Officer, and think she'll do an excellent job keeping that on our agenda as well as seeing a number of UNISON colleagues getting elected in differing capacities.

I was elected as Local Government Officer and Party Conference delegate, where I am looking forward to moving the rule change to add 'gender identity' to the Party's discrimination policy.

In God's Name

I was prompted by Simon Sarmiento to comment on the recent dispatches programme In God's Name - it's still on catch up or a bit if you're on Virgin Media and I don't know if gets repeated.

You can also see it on youtube (divided into 5 sections).

It's a very important documentary and well worth watching.

As you can see from my post below - this has prompted a letter from Joel Edwards which I can only read as Joel saying to evangelicals "If you're going to go nuts don't do it in front of a camera crew".

The most tragic point was of children in a "science" lesson in which a young girl answers Bible questions as well as young children being told about God turning people into pillars of salt before the coming of Jesus. A truly horrible and malevolent view of God that is being inculcated into young children.

It had its counterpoint when Andrea Williams was asked about the age of the earth and asked for the filming to stop and the headteacher when asked about the age of the earth said that he didn't know as he wasn't a scientist...

The programme features a evangelicals with a lot of aggression which seems to find its release in some of the campaigns that they undertake. They did not appear to psychologically balanced and anger appears to be a key concern.

Also very frightening how intertwined all of this with the Tory Party underneath Cameron's gloss of modernity, similar to the US religious right.

And please do not forget how powerful this lobby is - as well as connections to the Conservative Party the patron is a former Lord Chancellor and the President is a sitting High Court Judge.

As to the point about fundamentalist (and politicised) anger see this perceptive quote by Spong:

A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 5.]

Joel Edwards

As it is well known that I am that rare thing - a fan from within the LGBT community of Evangelical Alliance leader (as well as being a Commissioner with the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission) Joel Edwards, I thought I'd pass comment on his latest forays into the public sphere (I might even make this a regular item).

I should make clear that I do rate him as a thinker who is capable of both depth and brevity at the same time (he gathers both very good attributes in one whereas some religious thinkers only have the one, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is very deep (probably) but can't make his thought clear to ordinary folk).

So his latest forays have been an intriguing letter on the recent Dispatches programme, In God's Name.

Joel is at pains to distance himself from Stephen Green stating:

Stephen Green, a key example given of this fundamentalist movement, is an extremist. The vast majority of Christians who watched last night would, like me, have recoiled in horror at some of the statements he made.

The kind of fundamentalism shown by Stephen is not growing in the UK. Unfortunately, the oxygen of publicity provided by the media has exaggerated his influence. What is increasing is a movement of evangelicals, which currently numbers around two million.

He also uses the following in speaking of LCF's (Lawyers Christian Fellowship) Andrea Minichiello Williams

This is how a healthy democracy operates, and while Andrea may have been naïve and controversial in Dispatches, her actions were a legitimate and transparent part of the political process.

Talk about damning with very faint praise!

Possibly wrongly I think I have learned how to interpret Joel's statements because I think he is always saying the same thing - another thing I like about him.

It really is as Joel says important to see the diversity in evangelical thought and practice (presumably this means he is encouraging evangelicals (and LGBT activists?) to see our activist groupings as less monolithic (etym: consisting of a single stone), though not without consistency.

I must confess to a little more disappointment over his recent Thought for the Day. That's the transcript, the recording's as well as transcripts of other TFTD contributions is here and he has great reading voice so is well worth listening to if you get the chance.

I must admit feeling disappointed when he refers to Iain Duncan Smith's politically motivated actions around the 'need for a father' debate, quoting it as if it was a politically neutral group (in actual fact it was Iain Duncan Smith who moved the main 'need for a father' motion.

I was also disappointed he used Thought for The Day to wade into the debate on this issue which to my mind cuts across the BBC guidelines on impartiality.

Nonetheless I was interested by this section:

For a Bill providing loopholes by which Fatherhood becomes unnecessary seems strangely regressive. Same sex parenting is a feature in our democracy. But legislation which institutionalises the absence of fatherhood seems to me like a cultural time bomb.

It's great to see the recognition (don't blink you might miss it) of same sex parenting. The idea that law on IVF clinic treatment's is the place to tell fathers to take their responsibilities seriously is simply weird, when you think about it. Because parents, mothers, fathers, same sex, opposite sex should take their responsibilities seriously but it doesn't have to be in a heterosexual setting, does it?

I also noted this and see a little more (perhaps):

In the cacophony of voices on the subject there should be room for one more: it's the apostle Paul. "You have many teachers," he said, "but not many fathers." Fatherhood is not a biological accident or cultural misogyny.

Interesting. Interesting because Paul says 'not many fathers' - presumably you can have more than one .... Interesting also because Paul is arguing he is their (the Christians at Corinth) father, so he isn't actually addressing himself to biological fatherhood, which is the very point of same sex parenting .... where the second is ... a supportive parent? (i.e. the words the Government has put into the Bill).

And of course Paul also does describe himself (to Christians of Galatia) as their mother and we know that Jesus was raised by Joseph without being his genetic father.

Just a few thoughts. Or am I reading too much into it?

Well at the very least someone that quotes Moltmann and Tillich can't be entirely bad....

Addendum

Example here of an evangelical tirade against Joel for the way he has expressed his more moderate views. I have bought the book and await its delivery from Amazon.

UK Govt to promote LGBT human rights

Full report on Pink News - Foreign Office instructs embassies to push LGBT rights

Press release here on the FCO website

Despite repeated condemnation by the UN Human Rights Committee, discrimination and denial of people’s basic human rights due to sexual orientation continues. Human rights are universal and should not be determined by sexual orientation or gender identity. We are committed to promoting equality and ending the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT) around the world and have developed a programme to help achieve this. Working with human rights activists, international institutions and non-governmental organisations and like minded governments the Foreign Office is targeting states where same sex relations are illegal, to raise our concerns and encourage them to change their laws.

Why isn't Obama able to win everywhere?

Last night Obama inched yet further towards the nomination by sweeping ahead in (largely white let it be said Oregon).

Hilary still determined to stay in the race but surely now not thinking she will win but thinking no doubt of other things and of course keeping hope alive because you never know - it isn't over till it's over.

Why isn't Obama winning in every state?

Because both candidates have shown themselves to be very evenly matched in this contest and Hilary has shown her self to be extremely resilient (to her credit), albeit by shifting her message rather widly (less to her credit). There's no knock out blow because they're so evenly matched.

Does this mean she can still win?

Surely not. Because while the two are very evenly matched one of them has the edge - more pledged delegates, more super delegates, more small donors, ahead in the popular vote.

Hilary no doubt wants to get herself a name as a non-quitter and the party's foremost campaigner, the Dem's No2.

Clearly she has and will earn that right by the end of this process, whatever her formal role (I don't think two evenly balanced candidates should serve as each other's running mate, though evenly matched teams occasionally do very well......)

From today's Guardian They think it's all over by Michael Tomasky

But Appalachian states are not in conflict. They're red. Lots of pundits don't understand this yet. It wouldn't matter if Obama lost Kentucky by 80 points.

The only point now is how to end this thing. Clinton deserves respect. But she can't win. All that's needed is a referee who has the authority to send her to the locker room. Good luck with that, Democrats.

Phew! Government survives with its dignity intact

Finally we have seen that the Government has come through.

I think that hybrid embryos and saviour siblings were such issues that should have been resolved by a free vote. The Government had significant majorities.

Reinsertion of a need for a father for IVF treatment, although sounding commonsensical, would have been damaging and discriminatory in its impact.

From a Government that has legislated in favour of same sex adoption, Civil Partnerships and against discrimination in adoption services defeat on that would have been symbolic but a catastrophic loss of nerve on an issue of principle.

Although it was a completely free vote it would have been the wrong move to lower the limit for abortions.

What is worrying is the extent that politicians are demanding that their religious beliefs exempt them from the social policies of the Government, especially around fairness and equality. Worrying trend for the future.

Commons votes to maintain time limit

Vote No1 (13 weeks) 71-393 maj 322
Vote No2 (16 weeks) 84-387 maj 303
Vote No3 (20 weeks) 190-332 maj 142
Vote No4 (provisions relating to information in the event of abnormalities) 173-309 maj 136
Vote No5 (22 weeks) 233-304 maj 71

Govt wins both votes on 'need for a father'

RESULT VOTE No1 217-292 maj 75
RESULT VOTE No2 222-290 maj 68

I shall be posting here as things develop this afternoon.



Ian Duncan Smith's speech was very well crafted and delivered, especially in its peroration, though still dogged by his 'frog'

Dawn Primiarolo gave an assured, impassioned and spirited performance - by far the best I have seen from her

Evan Harris as good and lucid as always

John Bercow gave his usual performance in intervening helpfully on speeches on his own bench

Good speeches by a number of Labour MP's, especially Chris Bryant.

Of the antis Geraldine Smith (Lab) was infuriating opining that discriminatory treatment was 'just common sense' - lost count of how often she repeated that particular mantra but also said that Lancashire Lesbians were 'more down to earth' than Lesbians elsewhere......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agency Staff to get equal rights Breaking News on BBC

Link here.

Unions, which have campaigned for the measure for years, described Tuesday's agreement as a massive step forward.

There are estimated to be about 1.4 million agency workers in the UK.

Comment on California

Relying on Andrew Sullivan for much current commentary on this debate.

This item links to comments about supposed judicial hast (over reach?) in the Court's ruling but notes just how out of step California was 60 years ago in ruling racially mixed marriages could not be outlawed (even when they then were by all states up to that point and a ruling by the US Supreme Court was around 20 years into the future).

The key to California's decision in both 1948 and 2008 was to look more closely at an issue that had often before been rejected out of hand. In 1948 the court said that yes "separate but equal" was the law but looked at from the point of view of the individual there was no equal substitute for one's chosen marital partner. In 2008 they said yes the "right to marry" had been stated before with the idea of a marriage being the union of a man and a woman, but if one looked at the reasons for why marriage was a fundamental right it was clear that they would apply equally to unions of the same sex. In both cases it was the careful examination that led to what I believe was the correct decision on the law. Even if you believe one or both cases were incorrectly decided, though, when it comes down to fundamental rights and minorities that have not always been treated justly, it is no virtue for a court to ignore the issue in deference to the wishes of a majority. They should strive instead strive in good faith to apply the constitution regardless of the popularity of the decision. Those that disagree should argue on against the reasoning used and the legal principles applied and not rely on overstated cries of judicial activism.

France to promote LGBT rights

Have just come across this link to an interview given by Rama Yade, French Minister for Human Rights to gay magazine Tetu (from the web site of the French Foreign Office) about France's role in promoting LGBT rights.

There is also a report from yesterday's Pink News titled France will argue for universal decriminalisation at the UN.

Elsewhere have also blogged previously about work being started by the UK Government which Gordon Brown also committed to on becoming Prime Minister.

What will you be doing to help persecuted LGBT community worldwide from persecution and violence from right wing governments? What about EU countries that are hostile to gay rights? Ross Hunter

This Government has taken a lead in ending discrimination against gay and lesbian people in Britain, but as you say, Ross, the fight to counter discrimination is not restricted to the UK.

The reports we hear are deeply concerning: around the world gay and lesbian people are outlawed, persecuted and killed for advocating their rights.

We have announced an international strategy to promote rights overseas, which includes Britain's commitment to the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality.

We are and will continue to work with foreign partners and domestic organisations to protect the human rights of gay and lesbian people throughout the world.

HFEB Day 2 (Tues)

Today's votes will be on the need for a father and the debate to lower the abortion limit.

From today's Guardian - Do families need fathers?

Duncan Smith claims that, without fathers, boys join gangs and teenage girls become pregnant. But "there's nothing magical about fathers," says Susan Golombok, professor of family research and director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. "Fathers who are very involved with their children are good for children. But fathers who are not very involved - they aren't as important, and can even have a negative effect. It's a very simplistic notion to think that fathers are important just because they're male."

From today's Times - Abortion: a worrying tale of leeches by David Aaronavitch.

So this is what all this nonsense about “compromise” boils down to - telling women who are less than 24 weeks pregnant and who don't want to have a baby that, legally, they must go through with the birth. We then leave them the terrible choice of procuring an abortion elsewhere or of bearing a child they do not want.

To me, this is immoral. It is not a conjecture about lives that could be led, but an action that will damage lives that are being led. Tonight conscientious MPs should put on their leech-socks and vote against all these parasitical amendments.

On both issues we get the merest glimpse of the kind of Chamber we would have with a Conservative majority after the next election - not nice to behold.

Meanwhile, Louise has blogged extensively on yesterday's votes including Labour MP's who voted against the Government.

HFEB Day 1 - Government majority in today's votes

Hybrid embryos

Admixed embryos - Govt wins 336 - 176 Maj 160 (3 Cabinet members vote against).

True hybrids - Govt wins 286-223 Maj 63

Saviour siblings - votes as they happen

Tissue tying and sex selection - Govt wins 318-149 majority against amendment of 169.

Outright ban on tissue typing - Govt wins 342-163 majority against of 179

Restriction to use of regenerative tissue Govt wins 293-200 majority of 93

BBC report


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's newspapers included a number of articles including a good one by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian This fight really matters, and lays bare the big party divide :

Here's the bad news. Normal people can't afford to look away. This is too big. On abortion, and much else, it is a fight between conservatives and liberals that truly matters.

Lose 100-plus Labour MPs next year, or in 2010, and you will get a much more reactionary Commons. Lose votes like the ones coming up this week and you have it already.

I don't want to live in a Britain dominated by religious teaching. I want to live in a pro-science, liberal and progressive country where real people's real suffering can be relieved by medical advances and where minority groups are not abused. Behind the tactical smoke, that's the choice before parliament this week.