My Hesitation Over Same-Sex Marriage

I am often asked why I oppose same-sex marriage. It's a curiosity for people. According to popular rumour, it was bizarre enough that this nobody Tory party member signed up to be an LGBTQ JCR Officer in the first place. To have him then become Equality non-sabb yet openly oppose "gay" marriage, I suppose, might seem like an eclectic scenario.

I suppose it stems from my conservatism, though not for the reasons you might think. I don't oppose same-sex marriage in the same way I would if I did so on religious grounds, or because I base my politics on some outdated moral compass. Indeed I rarely think of myself as opposed to same-sex marriage at all. Instead, I tend to think of myself as simply against marriage, or rather legislation on the subject.

To me, the State is a complex construction. It's role is to be limited in remit though absolute in authority. Very little should be under the pure control of it's bureaucracies, though where that power is granted by the people, that power ought to be limitless. Why, then, do we presume that marriage is something for the State to be involved in?

I could appreciate it if these were simply left-wingers, who's natural inclination, rightly or wrongly, is for the State to hold sway. But I don't buy that, and I didn't think my conservative and liberal and libertarian compatriots did either. It strikes me as odd, and often saddening, that people who I thought I had common ground with, rush to welcome same-sex marriage laws as "progressive" and "modern". I disagree.

How can it be progressive, in any measure of the word, to create even more legislation in which the State with grace and majesty grants us our freedoms and our equality? Progress? Towards what, exactly? Some say equality, which is a word far too often bandied around by people with very little understanding of it's true meaning. Equal right to have our relationships approved by the State is not something I wish to be equal in. I do not need approval.

For every piece of legislation on marriage that we craft in our parliament, we are legitimising State intervention in our personal lives. We are saying that in order to be equal, we need Stately approval.

I cannot support that. "I shall not make windows into men's souls" said Elizabeth I. Quite right. So let's stop doing it. It is time for the focus of the LGBT movement and of truly progressive activists to shift. It is time we started pushing for true liberation; to be liberated from this State-approval of our relationships. It's time to take marriage off the statute books.

Some will cry pragmatism; taxation, benefits, financial administration; the State needs to know. Fine. So a civic union open to all will suit that need fine without marriage. Some will cry religious freedom. Fine. So a couple's ability to have a blessing in their faith and call it a "Marriage" should not be hindered. I agree. Some will cry tradition; I can't help you there. Traditions that need to be changed cease to be traditions and start to become barriers to liberation in my view.

The LGBT community's obsession with marriage doesn't even make sense to me. An institution that has historically been racist, and sexist, and xenophobic, and anti-Semitic...not exactly filling me with confidence here.

I don't oppose same-sex marriage. I oppose any legislation on marriage. And whilst some will try to paint this as a "next best thing", as a "stepping stone" to what I want; you said that about civil partnerships and we're still tinkering around the edges of the issue.

Will I refuse to get married? Unlikely. I can't hide from the reality. But it doesn't stop me being damn angry about it. And I don't know about the rest of you, but neither Cameron nor Miliband have a rightful place in my sex life.

CF Chairmanship: Northern Bred and Northern Based

Before I start, I ought to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way pre-empting the departure of our current CF Chairman early and nor am I making the case for an all-out assault on his position. I firmly believe that Ben should serve the full of his remaining term of office and that we're all the better for it. Just to be clear.

A surge of recent discussions on the future of the CF Chairmanship, from alleged platform launches of potential candidates, right through to parodies of our beloved Chairman on Twitter, has caused me to make this plea to our membership regarding the future of our party's youth wing.

As most people are undoubtedly aware, the deadline is creeping closer. The deadline I refer to, of course, isn't a nomination period or the opening of a ballot. It's much more serious. This November we will be closer to the next election (2015) than we are to the last (2010). It is at this pivotal moment that our party's youth must make a choice. We can stay the course and keep the status quo or we can make the case for a youth-led assault on the Labour and Liberal heartlands.

2015 will be an election that is won in Yorkshire, the Midlands, the North West and the North East of England. The next CF Chairmanship election will give CFers the choice to elect a leader who is going to lead the charge. As it stands, the Conservative Party is still polling poorly in these regions. The Coalition is deemed out of touch and the product of southern dominance. However whether you are a young person in rural Northumberland, central Birmingham or in the South East blue heartlands, an understanding and consensus must be reached that if we are going to win and form a full Conservative majority in 2015, then a new focus on the North is essential.

Despite the myths, this Government is doing a lot for the North and Midlands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, himself an MP for Cheshire, has been working to boost productivity and it's working. Output is up and for the first time since 1976, Britain is once more a net exporter of cars. This is due, in part, to the effective expansion of the Nissan Plant in the North East. However, whilst manufacturing is up, employment figures don't seem to reflect this in the localities near the plant. Why? Because in a modern, high-tech marketplace, more efficient, effective and productive plants often involve less staff. Investment in robotics, automated machinery and new technologies mean that often whilst the economy is growing in these regions, jobs are not being created as fast as they once would have been.

This is the type of issue that the Conservatives need to be talking about. This is the sort of issue that our Chairman needs to be highlighting and helping with. By linking this issue with the rise in apprenticeships, Conservatives can start to win the trust of the North back by saying; Yes, we do understand and this is what we're doing about it..

Northern Conservatism is a unique brand. Typically Northern Conservatives are less concerned about free market ideology and more concerned with jobs and training. We have a unique social conservatism about immigration and welfare and we have a concern about our public services. The North is disproportionately reliant on the public sector and so if we ignore it as a party, we're throwing the election away. You don't need to convince me that we're doing the right thing or that we're making public service more efficient. However our message needs to be stronger, clearer and more vocal.

My challenge for the next CF election is this: If you are a member, think about where you want your Chairman to be bred and based. Having a Northern-bred Chairman would be a nice start but I challenge the next Chairman, hopefully from the Midlands, North West, Yorkshire or North East, to base him or herself in the North.

If our Chairman was so determined to take the fight north that they would be prepared to base themselves in the North instead of in a London-centric office near Party HQ, if they would stand up for the unique brand of Northern Conservatism that we need to fight for to win, if they would lead the charge even if the rest of the Party-proper does not follow, then we will have done everything we can as a youth wing to help our Party and our country.

So at the next CF elections, take a moment to reflect. Northern bred and Northern based; that's the target.

(Edit: Quick note to say that I am aware the recommendation is overly simple here. It is deliberately so in order to spark debate and discussion on the issue.)

DPM just doesn't get good governance

The Deputy Prime Minister’s assertion that the conservatives have “broken” the Coalition agreement is not only inaccurate but is worryingly unprofessional.

The news has hit that the DPM plans to take revenge on the Conservatives following the rebellion of 91 MPs on Lords Reform. He has confirmed that the Liberal Democrats plan to hit back by blocking boundary changes in the House.

There are several worrying nuances to this.

The first is that the Liberal Democrats believe that putting a bill forward with a timetable motion to get it done quickly, an attempted whipping of MPs and a public fight over an issue equates to the Prime Minister “breaking” the Coalition agreement. Clearly their idea of breaking an agreement and mine are too very different things for as far as I can see the Prime Minister has done everything in his power to help Lords Reform through. Ultimately, if there is a rebellion, there is a rebellion. The Prime Minister tried whipping and pressuring and he has, rather sensibly, concluded that it just isn’t going to wash.

The second is that the Liberal Democrats believe in “an eye for an eye”. They’ve asserted that as the Conservatives have, in their eyes, “broken” the agreement, they can too. This is an exceptionally worrying stance for a party that self-righteously reminds us constantly that they believe in the rule of law and clean politics. It appears that viewpoint doesn’t apply when they want the chance to play dirty. There is a strong element of hypocrisy here in criticising the Conservatives for breaking their agreement right before doing the same.

The third, and my personal fear, is that the Deputy Prime Minister plans on taking revenge and retaliating against his own Prime Minister. It’s as if the LibDems don’t quite get good governance at all. He is the Prime Minister’s deputy, not his equal. As a rule, he is there at the pleasure of the Queen, who chose David Cameron to govern. Why does he then feel it’s appropriate to rebel openly against not only an incumbent Prime Minister but his own colleague? It is the height of unprofessionalism and does great damage to the Liberals’ statesmen credentials. If they can’t be loyal to their own Government whilst IN Government, especially in a positions such as DPM who on earth do they expect is going to trust them with such senior positions again?

 The final is that the Liberal Democrats believe House of Lords Reform is more important than economics, education, health or welfare. They complain that they backed all of the above and yet Lords Reform is a step too far. Wow. Really? They went back on tuition fees, backed the budget, pushed through controversial health reforms and have contributed to stripping welfare provision (I hasten to add that I express no opinion here about any of these things), complain about doing so and then decide that Lords Reform is their major issue they can’t continue without. They really think reforming that House is their priority? I don’t join with the ridiculous notion that Government’s can’t do two things at once, of course they can. However to have picked this issue above all others to rebel over is just pathetic.

I have to question, what are these people doing in my Government? Say what you like about both Labour and the Conservatives but ultimately both have proved to have statesmen amongst them, to believe in good governance, to stand for collective responsibility and to show loyalty toward their Prime Ministers. Somebody needs to drill this into the Liberals quickly if they want to ever repeat their stint in Whitehall.

CF Needs To Rally Around Our Chairman

There has been a lot of criticism over the last few week of CF Chairman Ben Howlett and his handling of particular incidents within the organisation. I have no real interest in attacking Ben or in speaking up in defence of him. The problem I wish to address is broader.

CF needs to do its part in addressing the serious defections happening in the party’s grassroots. Whilst defections on Twitter and Facebook and running commentary regarding them are often portrayed as melodramatic and inconsequential there is a growing amount of young activists switching side. Youth are most often portrayed as the most loyal of activists; they’re the ones who deliver the leaflets, hand out the flyers, canvass the doors and do the ‘grunt’ work during an election campaign. Whilst this is not always the case and young people do sometimes switch allegiance, CF is facing a more worrying trend.  The members who are defecting are not simply changing their view. These members are sticking rigidly to their view and are punishing CF for not doing the same.

I consider myself to be a liberal Conservative but I am worried by the increasing amount of rhetoric about an alienated right. The right wing of our group (and I’m talking about CF here, not the main Party) feel that the current Government do not represent them fully. They’re worried, rightly so, about the liberalism in cabinet and the One-Nation view conquering the party. Equally, the libertarian wing of our party see issues such as privacy and are fleeing for the freedom-loving arms of UKIP and, in some cases, the Liberal Democrats.

These people should not be ignored and they certainly should not be criticised. These are the young people who are struggling to see why their youth grouping is not pushing and pressuring their own Government, who they help to get elected, to represent their view. Whether on the left of the party or on the right, they’re worried that CF is not pulling its weight. Hence the critique of Ben having stepped up a notch.

However the solution to this serious feeling of disfranchisement is not to attack our Chairman or to publicly call for his resignation. CF needs to help Ben feel that he can openly challenge the Government where we feel he is going wrong. CF and its leadership should not be pushing the cabinet agenda and ought to feel strong enough to declare our position, as varied as they come, to the upper echelons. If we are serious of fighting to win in 2015 and we’re serious about having a true Conservative government, CF needs to be empowered to its part. 

So rally around our Chairman and send the message that we’re giving him the power and voice so say what we’re all thinking.