By It’s easy to be complacent about gay rights after watching LGBT Labour’s film for the European elections. Such big legal steps have been taken since 1997 that many people might assume this means the job is done. But waking up this morning to hear on the Today Programme that a gay church minister has only narrowly won his right to lead his congregation in Scotland reminds those who campaign for greater equality that in reality the job has only really just started. Enshrining rights in law plays a huge part in shifting the attitude of the state to gay rights, but societal change takes far longer, as women can attest after 35 years of equal pay legislation. Progressives will only embed equal treatment for gay people, therefore, if we win the broader argument about the need for greater equality in society full stop.
Public attitudes towards LGBT rights often take the form of accepting them in the negative: ‘I don’t like what you do, but I will defend your right to be able to do it’. People commonly cite them as a ‘fringe issue’ or something to do with ‘what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom’. For me, LGBT rights, along with other group rights to equal treatment, couldn’t be more fundamental to Labour’s quest for true equality. But we need to work harder to convince the public to view rights in a positive way. I want to live in a society where we celebrate each other’s difference rather than merely tolerate it. I want to fight against homophobic bullying not merely because it is unfair or illegal, but because it destroys lives which could have been brilliant. I want to campaign for a society in which everyone has not just a legalistic equal opportunity to fulfil their potential, but active support to do so no matter what their sexuality or background.
LGBT rights are diminished if they are treated as brand decontamination or are begrudgingly adopted because it’s just the way things are going. I’m not saying we shouldn’t welcome David Cameron’s apology on Section 28, it’s important that we accept the progressive movements others make. But we must remain suspicious of his motives. One lesbian candidate and an admission of wrongdoing do not equate to a revolutionary sea change. Instead we need to ensure that the Tories at all levels of the party, not just in Parliament, are practising what they say they now preach. We also need to make more effort to understand why, as some polls seem to suggest, gay people are supporting the Conservatives. The point has been made before that voters don’t thank you for what you’ve achieved, but what you’re going to do for them next. Labour needs to recognise this and agitate more for societal change, particularly in relation to homophobic bullying which is often engrained and tolerated, particularly in schools.
But in the same way that women don’t only vote for parties on gender specific issues, neither do gay people only vote on LGBT issues. So the added support for the Conservatives is likely to reflect the wider public dissatisfaction with the government. This means Labour needs to continue its focus on getting the economy going again, recalibrate its arguments in favour of greater equality but in a language the public can understand, and keep the pressure on public service improvement. Warning the gay community about the dangers of a Tory government is important, but gay rights are more likely to be guaranteed if the government is able to turn its fortunes around and convince gay voters that we are fit to be elected for a fourth term.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
What is your view on ensuring people living in the Uk have the opportunity of gaining the skills sets required to give them meaningful long-term employability and therefore a chance not only of competing with workers from Europe or whereever, but have the opportunity to be able to be mobile and work in Europe or wherever?
Also, during this particular time period which for a number of reasons is unique, where do your priorities lie when the recession is Global. Just because lawyers, politicians and some others appreciate and understand the legislation regarding working within the European context and International context, Joe/Jane Bloggs from say Yorkshire who has no appreciation or interest in freedoms of trade and employement, who just wants to feed his/her family and is to proud to go the dole, where would he/she fit into the scheme of things?
Do the policies affect the reality? And remember those who prefer to work do not the dole, and the stigma they get by being on the dole is rather unpleasant. I did it myself once when I was getting fit to join the armed forces, I can assure you after two weeks I told them where they could keep thier money.
When you read Law at Cambridge you would be familiar with the greater legal picture, but many people are tied into their locality and are under no obligation to be as interested in the economic freedoms trade/capital/workforce.
Do you focus on those you represent in, say, Parliament or do you act within the International legal principles?
How do you think existing policy can help such immobile people with low skills sets? At the moment the State does not ensure people have those skills sets. Where I can just send out my CV to say, five employers and get a job, most people look at job adverts and can't even identify with the skills required for the job.
"I also don't think people in the Labour party should merely support a policy because it is popular with middle and lower earners. We should support policies which are just and fair and don't pander to people's innate prejudices about people who come from other countries."
There are serious dilemmas with this point which certainly do question your political positioning. The first is that you are not elected to represent the people in the International context in your statement, in fact it is the lower and middle earners you represent and that does not necessarily imply they are in any way prejudiced, they may just be very concerned. Remember just like Ministers who leave thier jobs and are seeking jobs, the people who voted for you want good jobs too.
Yes I am fully aware of population pyramids and dynamics regarding our elderly population, but nobody is offering a sustainable solution to the dilemma that importing a workforce (temporary or otherwise) that will be cheaper than employing locals is somehow going redress our numbers at the lower end of the pyramid. It's just so short term and with no regard to infrastructure or carrying capacity (eg barking and Dagenham, just ask Jon Cruddas or Margaret Hodge). Both Tony Blair and John Major believed in the false delusion that the UK can compete with Asia - I am in East Asia now, and you don't stand a flying chance in hell.
Of course you can now accuse me of detracting form you central point on this article, but I think you will find that we are now discussing the very core features that feed powerfully into all discrimination.
You as a theoretical MP wanting to one day work as Alan Milburn's representative commercial stooge in Health, do not represent the people of any country other than the UK unless perhaps you stand as a Euro MP in the specific country in question.
It does come down to who you represent at the end of the day. Because it's the voters who are your boss and who are you to decide what is "just and fair" on this emotive issue that your potential constituents might want to speak to you about?
The "complexities (they are not that complex) of Labour market economics" are only useful when they reside in your favour, and as we all witnessed across the globe our economics, complex or otherwise, Milton or Keynes, are not standing up to much scrutiny (I had many lengthy conversations with Ministers on this issue).
One man on the BBC was quoted as saying he voted BNP "Because Labour no longer represents the working man". Though he used the term "man" I think we can allow that to mean person as he was not being literal. If your case is true than he is correct. You are assuming responsibility for "all workers". I hope "all workers" will vote for you.......
I am sending Alex an Article addressing (in a small way) this issue, but with one potential policy that can help. I have spent over five years looking into this personally for my own political reasons. I think the policy idea is good one, of course you may agree or disagree. I will be campaigning for it when I return to the UK. It is merely one of seven practical specific policies that I have formulated on this issue.
Oh I concede the point that many migrants workers are professional level. I used to live in a house-share with two in London, though I knew one was being paid less than he should have been for his job by about 5-10k per annum.
Migrants do not always come to this country to work as cheap labourers, of course. This report shows that nearly a quarter of in-migrants came to study here. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Seminar_Global_tcm6-16062.pdf
Page 14 shows that the largest proportion of migrants come to fill professional, employers, managers and intermediate jobs. While we are in a recession, of course it is right that those who find themselves unemployed should be supported to fill available jobs where they have the right skills. But once we are out of the recession, it would not be in our economic interests to stop companies hiring the people with the best skills for the positions they need to fill. The state should do its utmost to ensure the necessarily education and training is provided so that UK citizens can compete for those jobs, but if the pool of available isn't there, we shouldn't penalise industry by saying they can't recruit migrants. The new points based system will hopefully, once it's ironed out a few glitches, ensure that migrants who come to this country looking for work only fill those categories of jobs where there are vacancies: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/
I know I'm in the right party because Labour by its very name exists to support workers. All workers, not just those in the UK. I am an internationalist who believes that citizens across the globe have a right to work in this country if we cannot find adequate employees on our doorstep. This shouldn't be at the expense, however, of workers' rights which is why it is important that Labour introduced the minimum wage and has sort to license gangmasters and others who seek to use migrants illegally in this country for their own personal profit. I also don't think people in the Labour party should merely support a policy because it is popular with middle and lower earners. We should support policies which are just and fair and don't pander to people's innate prejudices about people who come from other countries. Too much of our debate about migration is obscured by a fear of the other, rather than thinking about the complexities of labour market economics.
If we do get a Tory government, I don't think they are likely to reverse any of the legal changes, and it will be interesting to see what does happen.
Bravo !!
It's exactly what I've been fighting for for the past 40-plus years.
One was Tory the other Liberal.
However they did support Labour when they wanted to see a change in the Law. In thier case they were satisfied with thier situation (hence my resulting assumption that they were in effect married).
Now they "had what they wanted" they simply deferred to a natural political position based upon thier own natural views.. In the case of the Liberal he supported Labour but would not do so because like many voters he was tired of the same thing and wanted to see change.
In the case of the Tory, he always a conservative and was impressed with tony Blair. Once they felt they did not have "an axe to grind" and be able to "marry" or whatever you want to call it, they were content to concentrate on those policies that were attractive to them.
The Liberal was a student and reading his first degree living in a married quarter provided on the camp. Many students tend to go Liberal as the party has a position on tuition fees (unsustainable) and are attracted to the fact they are the underdog. This was the case when I was at University whether things have changed I do not know.
The Tory was from an armed forces family "tradition" like myself. Except unlike me he was blue to the core, bless him. He was very complimentary about Labour on Gay Rights but he felt obliged to follow his families tradition. Fair enough.
It was a good political debate. I got more politics out of those two in the military at a social event than I can get out of my own party. Speaks volumes.
The truth is that we are a victim of our own success. You are spot on Jessica when you say that the electorate are not grateful, Scotland is a prime example. But there is no reason why people should be. In light of the fact that politicians are milking the system and getting jobs from companies they have worked with as Ministers or Mp's I think we should forgive them.
Perhaps we van try a new tactic to win them over. Like trying to be cleaner than the Conservatives and not copying the corruption of the Conservatives.
Maybe not relying on Immigrant workers (who send thier money home) during a recession as you stated in the New Statesmen and I'll quote "I also wasn't convinced that the move to charge migrants for use of public services will work in practice and doesn't it send the wrong signal at a time when our economy will increasingly rely on migrant labour?"
Increasingly rely on migrant labour? Cheaper labour during a recession? Do you understand the implications of what you have said and where your loyalties lie as a result? I don't think this policy your advovating is attractive to either middle or lower earners, many of whom have lost thier jobs and are struggling, are you sure you are in the correct party?
However I agree we should not charge Migrants. Though this detracts from the issue.
Basically you are going to have to win them over as ordinary voters with ordinary lives and not because they are gay. Welcome to equality. And remember we do not celebrate peoples differences that is why parliamenatarians are so out of touch. They do not embrace difference, they avoid it. They do not love the public there is contempt running both ways. It starts at the top with role models who think they are in a job doing a career as a profession as an elected Civil Servant. They are not. They are leaders of a country and politicians, and at the moment they neither represent the middle wage or lower wage people. Because they don't understand the word "represent".