The results Part 1

I cannot remember a more dramatic result from an election. It was unpredictable because the swing between parties was no where near uniform and because it was not clear what the final result was going to be.

Usually UK elections the exit poll results plus the first few results tell you who has won and that they will have a working majority plus or minus a few surprise local 'upsets'.

In this election the upsets were the norm.

On a personal level I was pleased Labour held Nottingham East (my constituency) and neighbouring Nottingham South and especially Gedling which was a fantastic result. At the same time we lost Sherwood, Erewash, Broxtowe and Amber Valley.

Anyway results now in. We are well and truly hung - or balanced as I believe the phrase has it.

It's really hard to make sense of the campaign and its result. While Labour was completely written off and whose national campaign was broke and not very good and our leader was not telegenic in debates we did much better than predicted and came a clear second and won in many close seats.

There is in this country a seem of people, activists and voters who together want there to be a Labour party and will make this happen.

While a reform coalition is possible it seems unlikely. This is because the Lib Dems appear to not want to invest in a historic moment where we could create a government to reform the voting system and the House of Lords amongst other things and instead are turning to the Tories because they came first in the election - that is to say according to the logic of first past the post at constituency level which they so object to but appear to embrace at the national level.

So we'll have a Con Lib government whereas I'm an anti-Tory who wants all options to be explored to avoid a Tory government.

The consequence of this is we must embrace and learn the art of opposition until we are back in the government. I am sure that we'll have to revisit some policies, learn from mistakes and elect new leaders by which time we can be renewed and work out what we're really about, what we really want to achieve in political alive.

Why I'm voting Labour

OK, I'm not pretending everything over the past 13 years is all brilliant - some of it isn't. Some of it is brilliant but took a long time to get there.

BUT for the Human Rights Act, Civil Partnerships, Minimum Wage, saving us from a massive depression, Sure Start, improving the NHS......

Added to the risk of getting a Tory led administration with or without a majority that will put all of this at risk.

You can of course vote Lib Dem, Green or whatever floats your boat. Please feel free to do so but beware of the consequences under our voting system (Labour want a referendum on changing this so you're not forced to vote tactically) the risk could be letting the Tories in - especially in Labour Tory marginals. Go to bed with Nick and wake up with Dave. Not a nice thought and a major risk to the country's recovery and prosperity.

I am therefore voting Labour in this election. I am sure and know that with the Labour Party we will be able to make progress in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Cameron fluffs his lines

The details (with some excerpts) here.

This was described as a 'car crash' of an interview. Cameron became confused at times and disoriented and at one point forgetting it was a televised interview.

It's important to ask why his discomfiture.

Could have been he'd had no sleep that night, had had a row with his staff and was therefore out of sorts.

It is likely this was the case.

This does have some repercussions for our view of David Cameron. A PM, even if being evasive or just not very good, should still be more or less competent at doing interviews.

In my view it says something about Cameron, who he is and what his method is and spells big, big trouble for him and the country if he ever gets to be Prime Minister.

I think that he thinks that merely making a few glib sound bites is a sufficient stand in for policy making and maybe isn't even aware of the broader policy issues affecting LGBT people - hasn't even thought that there's more to this than learning a few cheap sound bites. Plus he has been given a kid glove treatment by the media and wasn't expecting a probing treatment by anyone - a bit of the old Etonian who is born to rule and needn't be scrutinised.

Important ECHR ruling

I saw this in Pink News. See also ILGA-Europe.

It's a very important ruling, especially as it's unanimous and builds on previous rulings in similar cases (notably Austria).

The Court concluded that 'de facto marital cohabitation' must include same sex couples under the right to private life and freedom from discrimination.

I find para 92 (near the end) to be particularly important in terms of the Court's own understanding of its own jurisprudence:

92. Sexual orientation is a concept covered by Article 14. Furthermore, when the distinction in question operates in this intimate and vulnerable sphere of an individual's private life, particularly weighty reasons need to be advanced before the Court to justify the measure complained of. Where a difference of treatment is based on sex or sexual orientation the margin of appreciation afforded to the State is narrow and in such situations the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in general suited for realising the aim sought but it must also be shown that it was necessary in the circumstances. Indeed, if the reasons advanced for a difference in treatment were based solely on the applicant's sexual orientation, this would amount to discrimination under the Convention (see E.B., cited above, §§ 91 and 93; S.L., cited above, § 37, ECHR 2003-I; Smith and Grady, cited above, §§ 89 and 94; and Karner, cited above, §§ 37 and 41).

At the same time ILGA-Europe reports of latest developments of the Schalk and Kopf case on same sex marriage where Prof Robert Wintmute has been given intervener status in front of the European Court of Human Rights (arguments regarding admissibility at this stage).

There is a very interesting link to the oral arguments here.

Civil partnerships in Church?

I must admit I still scratch my head about this one and struggle to see how it can work given the practicalities. Hopefully the government can work something out.

I am glad that the House of Lords did vote in this way. Kudos to Lord Alli who has been a fantastic performer in the House of Lords on this and on many other issues.

I am also glad for the fact that there is some respect for the spiritual autonomy of minority faiths such as Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaisms.

I think, ironically, that religion is quite a good angle to come at this problem and that it leads us to the view that for some faiths they will be able to marry people in church (or synagogue); others might not be happy to marry in church or synagogue but might doctrinally be happy to provide civil partnerships and others may opt for either civil partnerships or civil marriage.

I am for respect for spiritual freedom for churches, faiths and individuals and I think that this is the way to approach this issue.

The attitude of the Church of England is sadly pitiful. It's the kind of attitude of "Why on earth do people need religious services?" whilst being a church that wants (presumably) wants to attract people to have a service.

This attitude can only (a) put people off coming to church for a ceremony and (b) when they do have a ceremony they are likely to see through the church's spiritual bankruptcy and see this as a ceremony but no more and it's a pathway to a profound divorce between church and people which is very sad.

The scare stories about litigation against priests who refuse to conduct a ceremony are utterly mendacious and badly reflect on the bishops' seriousness and integrity - clearly people that daft (or frankly dishonest) have no place in our Parliament and should be kept out of any reformed upper chamber.

Thinking Anglicans has been great on this issue as well as Ekklesia.

Goodbye Michael Foot

Sad to hear of the death of Michael Foot at the wonderful age of 96.

My favourite memory (only from recordings - I was too young when it happened) is Michael Foot's wind up speech in the confidence motion that brought down Callaghan's government in 1979.

His oratory therefore wasn't just good for barnstorming rallies and wooing the faithful at Conference (great though he was at that). He was a great parliamentary performer as well as actually doing Parliamentary business - keeping a minority government afloat during the most testing of times in the 1970's by working with minority parties.

His greatness didn't translate as Leader of the Labour Party. I don't think he was ever going to be Prime Minister at the best of times but after the loss of the SDP and the Falklands it was always a very long shot and, although he was always a sincere (and indeed unspun - I can't think of anyone further from the world of political spin, though the result wasn't great in a TV age) he believed his own rhetoric and therefore didn't succeed in translating the radicalism of the Party into anything likely to get a good showing.

On the other hand I don't think anyone else would have done much better given the material.

He did at least lead the Party in the way it wanted to be led at the time and keep the show together (more or less) and allow a fightback.

That's the reason Foot is remembered with so much fondness by the Party.

Only in his passing is the wider culture becoming aware of Foot's bigger history as a journalist, campaigner against fascism, erudite lover of literature and representative of an English liberal take on socialism.

Hopelessly romantic in the end, and the antithesis of modern politics I remember he had the humility to have never spoken out against his successors (Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown) even though he had many opportunities to do so. Not many have displayed such loyalty and ability to efface themselves.

Equality Bill hooha

I have not followed all the intricate comings and goings of the Equality Bill but here's my brief overview to date:

Unfortunately the God-squad have been in action (bishops in the Lords) and latterly (and much more high profile) His Holiness the Pope.

The Pope's timing is a bit off as he attacked the Equality Bill as a whole after the bishops had won the votes in question and the intervention isn't the most well informed, from a number of perspectives.

The Pope meanwhile has been waxing lyrical on the idea that any equality legislation for gay people is against the Natural Law - this doesn't even compute as a concept so I won't try to understand what he exactly means by that. It is of course silly and insulting and does more to undermine Natural Law thinking. Which is a good thing.

The debate isn't about religious posts per se - it is clear they were always going to be exempt. It's about cleaners and office staff and whether it should be lawful to discriminate against people in such posts.

Anyway, the religionists have won that vote and the Government seems to have accepted this and won't be seeking to reverse the Lords' amendments. Apart from anything the Equality Bill which has been many years of hard work in the making is fast running out of time ahead of the General Election and there's limited parliamentary time left.

Whether the religionists have won what they think they've won is a different matter and in this field the UK needs to comply with EU law on discrimination (this is what the Government was trying to make clear in the Bill). So a lot of sound and fury for very little.

What are we left with?

The Church in its official manifestations seems to have put discrimination at its heart. Equates freedom to discriminate with both Natural Law and 'religious freedom'.

The Pope's obviously playing a bigger, wider game both in international power politics as well as trying to pick up Anglican converts to his 'Anglicanorum Coetibus' thing.

Very sad, will any one save the Church from itself?

The splitting point

The anti-homosexual agenda started in the 1998 Lambeth Conference now bears its full bitter fruit.

We see that the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to bear witness against pure evil - the proposed anti-homosexuality bill which includes the death penalty for some 'offences' and imposes threat of imprisonment on any who fail to 'inform' on a homosexual - do we not recognise Stalinism made manifest?

Very little evidence of Lambeth 1.10 Anglicans having any ability to recognise what's happening and speak out.

Oh it's very sensitive. It's complicated. It's cultural.

I imagine there were people who said the same about slavery, apartheid, other forms of absolutism.

I'm not in favour of 'x' but if I speak out it might be counter productive. I'm changing things quietly from the inside - yeah right. How very comfortable, how very Anglican, how very hypocrtical.

Well we can all relax now because the game is well and truly up and we can see what there - what's really always been there. And has been there from the beginning.

Either the Anglican church (C of E and its colonial derivatives in whatever formation they find themselves) believe in human rights and human rights advocacy or they don't. And they either believe in the humanity and personhood of LGBT people or they don't.

Well now we know they don't. Or at least not sufficiently enough to stop a lynching.

It comes into clear relief as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a vaguely threatening statement about the Diocese of Los Angeles appointing a highly qualified bishop who is a lesbian.

It's in sharp relief with his refusal to make any pronouncement with regard to Uganda even though there is well established Anglican teaching on human rights. Oh but they didn't really mean that bit (I'm sure they felt warm and fuzzy when they passed such resolutions and felt a tinge of smug superiority), least not when LGBT people are in the firing line of the religious right empowered - that is to say with the ability to make their nightmare fantasies part of the law of a country.

So I think it's pretty clear what anti-gay Anglicanism really stands for and I am at least thankful for that. It is for the rest of us to speak out, if we can find it in ourselves to do so.

And it is therefore imperative that the election of Cannon Mary Glasspool be given the necessary consents for her consecration to proceed.

Civil partnerships in Church?

News on PinkNews that Stonewall and LGCM are asking for the Government to allow churches to carry out Civil Partnerships.

Not sure what I think about this as Civil Partnership is 'civil' and not religious but on the other hand there is the freedom of religion argument and churches are not allowed to honour their faith in being able to join together same sex couples, though of course nothing stops them from offering a blessing ceremony or prayers for the couple after the ceremony.

I think it is more important to allow same sex couples to marry whether in church or indeed a civil marriage.

Government backs down on 'free speech' amendment

The government has now backed down on the attempt to remove the so called free speech amendment inserted into the legislation in a previous session.

I am sorry to say that, though I oppose the amendment, I think it was a mistake to try to reverse it as the Government did not have the votes in the House of Lords and it was never likely to win on the issue.

The 'free speech' amendment is not needed and is unhelpful. On the other hand there have been instances where people's misguided and no doubt intolerant speech has been investigated by the police, thus giving ammunition for the Christian right in Parliament (admittedly from a mere handful of unrepresentative instances).

And of course the Christian Right in the UK has not been in a rush to defend freedom of speech when under attack in Uganda, just to give one example so their attachment to the principle of freedom of expression is more synthetic and tactical than real.

Graduate entry nursing

This is a recent government announcement also announced by the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) at the same time.

Press reaction has not been good.

The Royal College of Nursing has been pushing this agenda for some time, while UNISON has been much more cautious stressing difficulties in recruiting from diverse backgrounds and these concerns remain an issue.

But I think the time has now come to make this move. I think society has moved on and a degree is much more common than in the past where it was the preserve of a small elite. And I think the demands of nursing are much greater in terms of research, evidence as well as tasks such as organisation, management and critical autonomous thinking skills that tomorrow's nurses will need to be educated to a higher level.

I don't think that it's right to have two streams of entry (diploma and degree). There are two many inconsistencies between these two entry streams.

I don't agree with the false opposition between caring and developing a knowledge base - in today's nursing that's a thing of the past - all nurses are going to have to be able to work at the cutting edge.

The Diploma (which I did) takes 3 years to complete. All of the students I knew (including me) who had a previous degree found the Diploma harder than a Degree.

Of course, whenever entrance requirements are set, people who don't meet the standard are excluded but equally people are discouraged from entering the profession if the academic attainment doesn't match their abilities and so the profession loses out in that way as well.

Protesting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

This is the Bill in Uganda, promoted by right wing Christian groups based in the US who want to make the law on homosexuality even more extreme than it already is (homosexuality is already a criminal offence) and introduce the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality", life imprisonment for other offences, an offence of "attempted homosexuality", including 'touching' as a homosexual act and introducing not so much an 'informers charter' but a virtually mandated constant state of with hunt and hysteria where you are at risk if you don't inform of criminal offences.

The original law against homosexuality was introduced under British colonial rule - as indeed wherever the British Empire existed, Justinian's ancient homophobia persists.

But there's another story. That of the true face of Christian homophobia. The same people who make easy use of Jesus' message of love and are happy to enter a holy unity to enact such a shameful peice of legislation.

Well now we know what lies behind the mask of this kind of religion. We see it exposed to the bright day light what kind of religion this is. No no more doubt, no more pretence.

This is a brutal throwing away of all pretence of civil and human rights which Christians have at some times dallied with when it suits them and then thrown away when the lure of homophobia or some other vindictive whim is greater than any principle of a commitment to human rights.

And the Anglican Communion? Well. Where are the big, calming words now?

So far as I can see they are now completely absent. Principles for some people are very cheap but they purloin the name of Christ to hide their own lack of moral purpose for whom the spoliation of other's (and indeed of the Other - the Same Old Story) humanity.

The one advantage is that we now no the big words mean nothing, nothing at all and we're back to what some religionists do best.

And by the way I do here hold the Church in the West to a higher standard of accountability that so far seems completely lacking. Their account is now well and truly in and is not to be gainsaid.

Disappointment in Maine

Disappointment because it was a battle we might have won and came close to winning but didn't.

But at least we tried and came close.

I consider that the vote of 47% was a good floor on which to build. In life, in this kind of campaign, you need to start somewhere.

It will take a few years to come back at this in Maine, but I am convinced we will come back in both Maine and California.

There was also a success, albeit slim, in Washington State.

By degrees we will get to where we need to be. Little by little, step by step, we'll get there.

Not tonight

Seems like tonight isn't the night for marriage equality by referendum in Maine. Results are being predicted at 52-48%.

Again this is incredibly close and actually a great achievement although winning would have been a better one.

We can still come back in Maine as in California

Voting over

That exciting time when polls close and there's no more you can do win or lose.
I am watching the live feed of the Maine election night party after the vote for or against the proposal to reject the law on same sex marriage.

The party looks good! But no results yet so probably best to get the partying in now!

First results here (initial returns not good at 3% count).

Whatever the result I think we can celebrate as even if lost it will be close and shows we've come an awful long way even if we aren't there yet.

5% count - we're up and I might not get to sleep now
17% count - No is at 51.3% - I must say I fear that that lead isn't enough as rural votes usually come in later due to counting and geography - of course I don't know what districts haven't reported yet.
Different percentages given. Very. very close. We are down on some tallies. This may go down to the wire....... and absentee ballots

Following this also

Church of Sweden endorses same sex marriage

After already performing same sex blessings and supporting the country's recent gender neutral marriage law Sweden's national Church (Lutheran) adopted a decision to permit same sex marriages in its churches.

This is a positive and natural progression for that Church which has also elected a partnered Lesbian as Bishop of Stockholm and comes after pressure from the Church of England not to proceed in this way.

The Church of England is in communion with the Church of Sweden as part of the Porvoo agreement.

The vote was 176 in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.

Has Rowan Williams made mistakes?

I'm not - as said in an earlier post - sure what will become of the opening of Rome to Anglicans. I think for some fully formed Anglican entities they will very speedily be absorbed as they may already wish to be.

For the rest of us we may see realities stretch and evolve over decades of slow accretion to Rome, parish by parish as negotiations over assets proceed and the pathway gets 'opened up' as it were.

Which leads to two sets of interventions Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, may come to regret.

Number one is his expression of support for dissenting dioceses and parishes within the US Episcopal Church to a) secede and b) take their property with them. This is already being used to put pressure on for the churches moving to Rome to take their assets with them. The boot is now well and truly on the other foot and we can fully enter into TEC's pain.

Number two is Rowan Williams' articulation of a Catholic decision making. The idea that a Province should indefinitely not move forward or even articulate their views (of course the two are in reality interlinked - if TEC espouses a pro LGBT position it cannot indefinitely fail to move on such convictions as this would be unjust, ludicrous and illogical).

Of course Roman Catholics already act under this and it their ecclesiastical modus operandi - never move until we all move. Rowan Williams has articulated Roman Catholicism (so far as I can see) and articulated that the Anglican Communion mimic it in so far as it is able. And many Anglicans may be so convinced by this articulation of Catholic Universalism that they go the whole hog and move over to Rome - did the Reformers wait till their Reform was adopted by the entire Western Church? Self evidently not, no matter how good their ideas may have been they were not endorsed by the Church Catholic, either of the time or since.

From what I can see the Church of England is becoming progressively narrower in its internal life and I can see that a narrow church will lead increasing numbers to see little disadvantage to joining with Rome. For England, a progressive ecclesiastical reality appears to have been taken away from us whatever option we take.

Rome annexes a slither of Anglicanism

The latest high profile announcement from Rome has led to some possibly exaggerated response on the Internet.

There are doubtless some churches constituted on the fringe of Anglicanism that will move seemlessly across to Rome and to that extent I rejoice. If a group of the faithful belong with Rome I rejoice that the path is being cleared.

The big barrier is, of course, property issues. That will determine the extent to which it's a takeover as opposed to a gracious opening.

I am glad of the opening and I gather that 22nd February will be a kind of D Day as we get an announcement as to what Forward in Faith will do.

While awaiting this prayerful decision I would just say that I agree with many Internet commentators, that from the point of view of Liturgy I see no advantage in keeping Anglican liturgy - I'd be perfectly relaxed with Roman rites, so that's no big deal.

Finally this link from James Alison that proves absorption into Rome (and, joking aside, most Catholics would like to be a part of the Western - i.e. Roman - Catholic Church) won't make the homosexuals all disappear or make the questions go away.

Steven Gately's funeral

I thought it was a beautiful service and I was moved especially by the eulogy from Boyzone and in particular the emotional sentiments from Ronan Keating that he struggled so hard to get out.

I know pop stars live very much in the public gaze and this often gets overdone but I think in this instance the balance was right and there was a lot of bravery to allow others into share some of the grieving.

I found it very moving that Stephen Gately's relationship with Andrew Cowles was given alot of prominence in the service, which I think is a comfort.

Sadness of Stephen Gately

I was very shocked and saddened by the untimely death of Stephen Gately.

I have never met him, seen him perform, bought any records or even wanted to see him perform. I'm not too keen on Boyzone but the music is nice and easily listenable too. If he was appearing in my local town I wouldn't have gone to see him.

Again he wasn't in any way the musical genius that Michael Jackson was, though he was a bit more normal.

Yet I was upset and still am. In part the loss of anyone in their prime out of the blue just like that there's a real sense of pointless loss.

And in some ways his contribution to entertainment was a big one, whilst also remembering his coming out in 1999.

So never having been a fan I always liked Gately and wished him well in life and think the world was a better place for him having been in it.

That may be the best thing that can be said about a human being.

On the other hand some of the coverage has been atrocious. Like coverage suggesting he had been drinking before dying, smoked cannabis or some such thing. So what? He was a young man on holiday and was at liberty to do what many people do. There's no sense of decency to allow grief these days.

And then there's the senseless ravings of Jan Moir in the Daily Mail. Of course she denies she is being homophobic. Of course she does. Like most homophobes do.

I think that there is a lot of homophobia around the need to trash someone before they've even been laid in the soil.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
.... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.