Ed Miliband hints at gay marriage support too
Ed Miliband is also finally coming around.
OIn Twitter yesterday he said:
@JaeKay Got asked abt this today &made clear I support principle of gay marriage. Need to consult on how to implement.
This is not an unreasonable position.
The ‘problem’ as such with gay marriage might be technical and legal rather than than simply procedural.
In other words, how does the government allow the flexibility for some Churches to sanction gay marriage but others not – while not falling foul of equality laws?
Labour MP Kerry McCarthy wrote about this in January:
Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won’t have true equality until they are. I’ve tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn’t gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it’s more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn’t have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.
So it looks like Ed Miliband is also coming around to gay marriage, it’s just a matter of ensuring how it would be implemented and how the law could work. Perhaps. Nevertheless, it’s an encouraging sign.
I’ll try and find out more directly from the campaign next week.
Via @earwicga – who has a report on her blog about an event with Ed Miliband locally.
D-Miliband also confirms support for gay marriage
As Luke Skywalker would say, ‘almost there…’
Labour candidate David Miliband’s campaign got in touch just a few minutes ago to say that he has just written about his support for gay marriage.
During recent hustings and conversations with people around the country and on Twitter and Facebook, the issue of gay marriage has been raised on several occasions.
See I told you all this online campaigning works.
He adds:
We equalised the age of consent, scrapped the homophobic Section 28 and created civil partnerships. Because of our legislation some 33,956 civil partnerships have been registered across the country – over 500 in British Embassies abroad.
But it is an anomaly that gay couples – although they can call each other husband or wife – can’t say they are married. Canada and Argentina have shown the way forward.That’s why I support calls to change the definition of marriage to include exclusive relationships between couples, regardless of sex. This will mean gay couples will be able to describe themselves as married.
This does not force change in religious practice. I support the Labour amendment to the Equalities Act which made provision for religious communities to officiate civil partnerships but only if they felt appropriate. Under a new definition of marriage, the situation should to be the same. We should not force churches, mosques and synagogues to officiate over gay marriages but equally we shouldn’t stop those who want to.
Gay marriage is the logical next step in our mission for equality, but is just one part of our approach. Homophobia remains too common, including in schools. I want to tackle prejudices in law and in practice so we are always standing up for equal rights.
I welcome David Miliband’s support on this issue.
Your mission lefties, should you choose to accept it, is to now ask Ed Miliband (wherever you see him) why he’s the only Labour candidate not to support gay marriage.
Government’s alcohol crime claims fall down
In a press release issued by the Home Office yesterday, Theresa May said:
The benefits promised by the 24 hour drinking ‘café culture’ have failed to materialise and in its place we have seen an increase in the number of alcohol related incidents and drink-fuelled crime and disorder.
We know that the majority of pubs and bars are well run business but the government believes that the system needs to be rebalanced in favour of the local communities they serve with tougher action taken to crack down on the small number of premises who cause problems.
The government wants to “overhaul” the Licensing Act on this basis, and wants to introduce a series of measures outlined here.
This includes “taking tough action against underage drinking”, “charging a fee for late-night licences” and “increasing licence fees” so councils can cover costs linked to police enforcement.
But does the Home Secretary’s original claim that there has been an “increase in the number of alcohol related incidents” stand up?
The Home Office reluctantly confirmed to FullFact.org that it holds no data covering all alcohol-related crime in England and Wales.
So where does the claim come from? The fact-checking org reports:
When pushed, the Home Office identified their recent report ‘Crime in England and Wales 2009/10’ as the source of Ms May’s claim. Using British Crime Survey data, this report does indeed calculate the number of violent incidents attributed to offenders perceived to have been under the influence of alcohol.
However, contrary to the Home Secretary’s claim, the number of alcohol related incidents recorded in this study has actually fallen since November 2005.
So if the numbers have actually fallen, how does Theresa May’s claim stand up?
The Home Office tells FullFact the quote, “should have referred to the proportion of crimes, rather than the number.”
In other words – it’s just spin.
Isn’t it time Labour centrists admit they lost the election?
The left of the Labour party is usually caricatured as a homogeneous group that, pre-New Labour, dogmatically stuck to positions that ensured the party stayed out of power. That is, until Tony Blair came along, junked a lot of that dogma and convinced the party that to win power they had to change.
On some issues, particularly Clause 4, I think the Labour centrists were right to drop earlier dogmatic positions.
But here’s the thing: it looks like these Labour centrists, who were pragmatic about the need to respond to changing voter concerns in order to get elected, have become dogmatic themselves. They’ve become so obsessed with avoiding ‘tacking to the left’ that they themselves have become out of touch.
continue reading… »
How Ken will use economy to attack Boris
Ken Livingstone yesterday laid out a somewhat detailed economic policy in which he explained how he would challenge Boris Johnson’s administration, and the issues his campaign would highlight.
He said he was “setting out an alternative approach to protect Londoners”, calling the policy: Defending London’s Living Standards and Economy from the Tories.
On London’s economy the document points out:
* London’s unemployment rate (9.3%) is above the national average (7.9%). The economic inactivity rate in London is 23.7%, which is the worst inactivity rate in the whole of England;
* The need for greater engagement with major economies including India, China and Brazil and the damage caused by Tory government cuts on falling levels of public and private investment in London;
* The mounting cost to Londoners of Boris Johnson’s inaction on issues such as pollution and his vanity projects including the fantasy Thames airport and new bus (over £500 million).
His campaign made several pledges:
1. Holding down bus fares, following a rise in the cost of a single bus fare by a third under Boris Johnson – delivering the lowest possible fares is the biggest contribution that the Mayor can make to protecting Londoners living standards against the effects of the recession;
2. Making the Living Wage a condition of procurement, employment and services within the GLA group and ODA and using every lever to convince London employers to implement the Living Wage;
3. Building a new consensus across London for new infrastructure projects to improve the quality of life in London and create new jobs;
4. Opposing Tory-Lib Dem plans to privatise the Royal Mail and cut housing benefit which threatens thousands of Londoners.
5. Lobbying for a fair taxation system, rejecting Tory calls to lower the top rate of tax to 40%.
He said he was calling for a shift in priorities “from defending bankers’ bonuses” to “defending Londoners from cuts and investing in new jobs”.
I believe it is essential that the Mayor uses every lever to convince London employers to implement the Living Wage and make the Living Wage a condition of procurement, employment and services.
Whilst Boris awards pay hikes to his staff and regards his £250,000 a year salary from the Telegraph as ‘chickenfeed’ millions of Londoners are struggling to make ends meet and need a Mayor who will fight for them.
You can read the Economic Policy from here.
Why we should welcome Cameron’s comments on Gaza
The only problem with Cameron calling Israel Gaza a massive “prison camp” is that it doesn’t go far enough. Israel is still building illegal settlements that have all but destroyed any chance of Palestinian confidence in their intentions and the chance of peace.
But nevertheless, even such a small move is important, and unless it is loudly supported by those who want peace in the Middle East, Cameron will only hear pro-Israel frothing from the Tories and Labour.
That will only make him retreat. If we want him to go further, we must support even the baby steps.
continue reading… »
Hughes wanted Lab coalition instead
The most senior Libdem MP outside of government, Simon Hughes, has said he would have preferred a deal with Labour instead of the Conservatives.
We have been forwarded an email Simon Hughes sent in reply to a voter, in which he explains why the party went into a deal with Labour.
In the email Simon Hughes says:
People sometimes argue that we were wrong to enter a coalition with the Conservatives, and should have done a deal with Labour. Many people know that that was my first instinct and would have been more logical given the historic Liberal position as a left of centre party.
In the event such a coalition just proved impossible. The total number of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs did not come to a majority and arrangements with other parties would have at best produced a precarious coalition with a small majority.
There was a great danger that this would not have given confidence to the country that there would be a stable government over the next few years to deal with the sever economic problems which we faced. In addition it was increasingly clear during the negotiations that many senior members of the Labour party did not want a coalition with us and preferred the option of going into opposition.
Finally in the negotiations Labour were unwilling to make significant compromises in our direction on matters of real importance to us, such as the repeal of the legislation on identity cards. In the end a deal with Labour proved impossible.
And I am clear that the only other remaining alternative – which was to allow the Conservatives to run a minority government would have had all of the disadvantages of a conservative only government with none of the advantages of coalition.
In addition they would have for certain called an early election with a great probability of obtaining a majority for the Conservatives for the following five years. In a coalition by contrast many of the policies and much of the influence comes from the progressive Liberal Democrat tradition.
This is an excerpt from an email that focuses primarily on why Hughes supported raising VAT.
Hunt says job cuts like losing ministerial cars
The Daily Mirror has this story today:
Hunt, 43, outlined the impact of cuts, which he admitted could halve the workforce of nearly 600, to senior staff at the department’s HQ near Trafalgar Square.
He said: “The best-case scenario is still going to be a scenario in which there are going to be bigger cuts than any of the areas we represent have ever had to face, probably in their history.
We’ve made a small start with changes in policy on ministerial cars which is an absolute pain, but we’re all getting used to it.”
Mark Serwotka, of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents 300,000 civil servants, said:
This must go down as one of the most crass and insensitive comments a new cabinet minister has ever made to his staff.
via @GaryDunion
Does David Miliband believe in his own campaign?
Much attention has been paid to how much money David Miliband has raised, on whether he can beat Cameron and the sibling rivalry.
But very little has been said about the most interesting part of his campaign: the plan to train up 1000 community organisers across the UK and develop that as a model for the Labour party.
So let me explain briefly what’s going on, why this has huge potential for the Labour party and what it means for David Miliband.
DM’s campaign has recruited three community organisers from the CitizensUK (London Citizens), who have sort-of loaned them for a few months, to bring in outside expertise. It’s very likely that James Purnell had a hand.
It’s their job to train up to 1000 ‘Future leaders‘ in community organising by Labour party conference. The recruits don’t have to be, but mostly are, Labour party members. They are being trained and encouraged to start organising in their local communities to try and build an infrastructure.
But the campaign is also focusing on short-term ‘deliverable outcomes’ on local issues that can be used to boost DM through the publicity those stories will attract. Those examples of community organising successes will be hailed by the campaign in two ‘assemblies’ (rallies) – before and during the Labour conference.
People in the campaign say that whether he wins or not, they want to hand over the infrastructure as a legacy to the Labour Party (likely to be Jon Cruddas if he becomes chair) to take it forward.
Why this is important
I’m guessing there are several overlapping motivations here for DM’s campaign:
(a) to get the left-wing base of the party excited (especially Jon Cruddas);
(b) to boost DM’s campaign through local success stories, new recruits and media-friendly rallies.
DM’s campaign also say he is creating a model for the party to connect again with local communities.
To reconnect with voters again, not just by occasionally sounding tough on immigration, community organising should be an integral part of the Labour party. And so this is a very welcome move by David Miliband, and remains the most innovative part of his campaign.
If it genuinely takes root it could revolutionise the party.
The challenges
But does David Miliband believe in his own campaign? He has been remarkably silent about the community organising part, which may suggest it’s just a PR tactic in the run-up to party conference.
Other concerns have also been raised.
One source no longer with the campaign disclosed that ‘Future Leaders’ who want to attend the rally at Labour conference will have to join the party. This will be touted as a successful way to bring new party members. But the emphasis on party loyalty goes against how organising usually works, said my source.
Another said it wasn’t clear David Miliband’s team had found the right mixture of local organising and election campaigning. After all, the Labour party is a political machine with time-dependent goals, a model that isn’t necessarily compatible with traditional organising.
There has also been scepticism over whether the quota will be fulfilled. Organising is a long and arduous process where leaders are not developed and honed overnight. My guess is that around half of that 1000 quota will be fulfilled. Plus, their quality will not have been tried and tested.
Where next?
But all this groundwork also needs a plan to take it forward whether he wins or not. That would signal that DM is serious about community organising, and it’s not just a stunt.
This aspect of DM’s campaign has potential and I hope it succeeds in convincing more Labour MPs this is the way forward. But it needs serious pushing from DM himself.
—
Articles based on sources within and outside the campaign. I plan to get involved myself and see how it pans out.
Former defence minister calls for Trident review
Former defence minister Des Browne has today said that Trident must be reviewed within a new Strategic Defence Review.
In an article for the new blog Labour Uncut, he says “the world has changed since we made our original renewal decision” in 2007.
In recent years we have endured and are now dealing with the consequences of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Treasury statements to the effect that the full cost of Trident will now have to be met out of the core defence budget rather than from a Treasury reserve set aside for Trident as a ‘national strategic asset’ have enormous implications for the rest of our defence capability.
There is no way of examining the necessary trade-offs between nuclear and conventional capability in this defence review if Trident is left out of the process.
This would be a major departure from the Labour party’s policy on Trident.
All the Labour party leadership contenders, except David Miliband, have called for the renewing of Trident to be reviewed again. Diane Abbott MP is the only candidate who has called for it to be scrapped outright.
Will Des Browne’s statement today signal a shift in Labour’s stance on Trident?
Tory-led charity guilty of being party political
A major Conservative-MPs-led charity has been found guilty today by the Charity Commission of not being sufficiently independent from party politics.
The Atlantic Bridge charity was led by leading Tory luminaries such as Liam Fox and William Hague.
It was reported to the Charity Commission by blogger Stephen Newton for party political activity.
The Charity Commission reported today:
The Commission concluded that, although Atlantic Bridge is a charity with exclusively charitable purposes and is capable of operating for the public benefit, its educational objects have not been advanced by its activities because of the way in which it has promoted the ‘Special Relationship’ between the US and the UK.
The promotion of the Special Relationship is not the purpose of the charity and nor can it be. Although it is legitimate for a charity to study, research or educate the public about the ‘Special Relationship’, it is not permissible for a charity to promote a particular pre-determined point of view.
This is a huge victory for one blogger who has been researching and reporting on the charity’s work for months.
He wrote about how Atlantic Bridge’s activities included promoting a book by William Hague, subsidising a dinner for Tory MPs with a Fox News film reviewer in LA and sponsoring trips by Tory MPs to neo-Conservative think tanks in Washington DC.
The Charity Commission has not shut down Atlantic Bridge but has given it 12 months to change.
The charity’s website now says, ‘it is being updated’.
But Stephen Newton is not satisfied. “In no other arena would such a blatant disregard for the law go unpunished,” he says.
Read the Charity Commission’s report here.
Do the Afghanistan war logs change anything?
A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency. The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers’ website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history.
The Guardian has full coverage here, and the NY Times here.
A few thoughts…
1. No doubt it will further dampen support for the war in Afghanistan. But keep in mind this detailed events up till 2009. Things may be better under Obama’s administration (though probably not by much). The fact that George Bush was incompetent and conducted everything badly is widely known.
continue reading… »
Major investor: climate ‘most important issue’
The chairman of one of the largest fund managers in the world has called global warming ‘the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future’.
Jeremy Grantham, chairman of the Board of Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo (GMO), a Boston-based asset management firm, sent out a newsletter warning investors that they had to take global warming very seriously.
He summarised his position in a series of 13 points about global warming here (via Climate Progress).
Some of these points:
4. The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century. A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, floods, and other extreme weather events.
5. Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.
…
8. A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea.
9. Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians. Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead ?nance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market ef?ciency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was man-made. (See the attachment to last quarter’s Letter.) Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers.
Blogger gets libel threat for criticising company
Earlier today Labour blogger Luke Bozier tweeted:
Gordon Brown’s WebCreator website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. Tangent should be ashamed. http://gordonbrown.org.uk
He also blogged his opinion in a longer post saying that Tangent, the web company that does many websites for the Labour party, were “taking the Labour community for a ride”.
Within a few hours he received communication from Tangent saying:
I respectfully suggest you delete that tweet, issue no more similar ones and generally try to sell your products in a more professional way. I really don’t like the prospect of either a public slanting match or legal action, but if I need to protect my company’s business and reputation, I will.
Outrageous.
On Twitter the story has already received a lot of attention, with people using the hashtag #OffTangent.
Tangent has been criticised heavily on Twitter by libel lawyer JackofKent.
We’ll write more if there are further developments.
Coverage across blogs:
MTPT: Trafigura-esque Tangents, or A very progressive digital agency
Adam Grace: Instant Corporate Karma
Planet Jamie: Say A Website Is Poor, Get Libel Threat
Sim-O: Another opinion that isn’t up to scratch
Top Tweets
JackofKent:
Gordon Brown’s WebCreator website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. Tangent should be ashamed. #OffTangent
#OffTangent companies shouldn’t be able to sue for libel. As is the case in Australia.
Libel threat for saying a website is ‘crap’? http://bit.ly/auGYr3 Wouldn’t happen if Lester’s bill were law #OffTangent #libelreform
Spending Challenge page deleted after #votegoat!
Gideon the goat (yes, after much infighting we have finally agreed on a name) has already claimed its first political scalp!
Our newest political star had accumulated ten times as many followers as the Treasury’s Spending Challenge site on Facebook by yesterday.
The day ended with Gideon the goat being invited to a special special chat with Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook) himself on what to do about unemployment.
Cameron had launched his Spending Review Challenge on Facebook with much fanfare and a video chat with Mark Zuckerberg too.
But after being thoroughly upstaged in just one day, they have now taken down their Facebook page.
Oh dear. Does this government not like competition?
According to prominent left-wing blogs (so it must be true, we don’t spend all our time trying to track down what Gordon Brown is doing) a poll found that the goat had become even more popular than the Libdems!
Gideon’s spokesperson Clifford Singer said: “Vote goat!”
Watch: How Republicans stoke up racial hatred
An excellent package by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC
‘Black people are coming for you white people’
Watch (12m)
Top earning Tory: ban protests to save money
Here is Steve O’Connell:
The point I’m making here is in the new era of very difficult financial choices are we able to continue with the luxury of demonstrations going forward in a very liberal manner with a small ‘l’ and commit the costs that we have in the past? I don’t believe we can afford to go forward in that way.
O’Connell is a Tory Assembly Member and former banker who gets paid: £43,861 as a Croydon councillor, £53,439 for sitting on the London Assembly and £21,211 as chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority’s finance and resource committee.
That’s over £118k annually out of the public purse, making him Britain’s highest-paid councillor.
Britain’s second highest paid councillor is also a Conservative. Brian Coleman is on £118,499 a year: £38,177 as a Barnet councillor and cabinet member (up from about £27,000 last year), £53,439 for sitting in the Assembly and £26,883 as chairman of London’s fire service.
Steve O’Connell told the Metropolitan Police Authority (via Adam Bienkov at Tory Troll):
Should we not actually be considering whether we can continue offering the [policing] service to these demonstrations? Should we not have a situation where we get to the stage where if the funding isn’t there to provide the service, we should be having a conversation with the organisers where we say “you cannot have your event because we do not have the resources to fund it”?
In the past controversial plays have had to be shut down because the police did not want to bear the costs of policing the protests.
With Boris increasingly displaying authoritarianism – banning Democracy village and threatening motorcycle protesters – it looks increasingly like the Tories aren’t as enthusiastic about civil liberties as they’ve claimed.
Update: Goat now on Facebook conf. call
An unnamed goat has stormed ahead in Facebook fans stakes by comprehensively bleating the government’s Spending Challenge website yesterday.
Prime Minister David Cameron recently launched a collaboration with Facebook, to much fanfare, to encourage FB users to suggest ideas to cut government spending on a special page.
Despite the media blitz, and a special video stunt discussion with Mark Zuckerberg on YouTube, the Spending Challenge page on Facebook has a paltry 81 followers.
In contrast, the goat, who might be named Billy (but the lefties who adopted it couldn’t decide on a name and soon started accusing each other of betrayal), managed to attract over 500 fans in just one day.
The goat was unavailable for comment, but spokesperson Clifford Singer from the Other Taxpayers Alliance said: “Billy [the name's not decided yet dammit! - ed] passionately believes the government should focus on growing the economy not cutting spending.”
Update: Goat on conference call with Mark Zuckerberg!
Alternative Vote question revealed
The coalition government on Thursday published the wording of a referendum due next May on changing procedures for voting in general elections.
Voters will be asked:
Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘alternative vote’ system instead of the current ‘first past the post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?
The question is included in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill which will also cut the size of the House of Commons to 600 from 650 members.
The bill will in addition establish boundary reviews to create more equally sized constituencies.
A separate bill, also published on Thursday, will fix the terms of parliaments to five years. It will mean prime ministers no longer have the power to call for a dissolution of a parliament before the end of its maximum five-year term.
Update: The Electoral Reform Society today issued a press release welcoming the publication of a clear Yes/No question for the proposed Alternative Vote (AV) referendum.
Ashley Dé from the Electoral Reform Society said:
We’ve now got a clear question for a clear choice between the politics of the past and a better alternative. Our politicians use AV for electing their own. As this bill reaches parliament we trust they won’t try to deny voters the same opportunity.
History won’t look kindly on mischief makers who could still stand in the way of the coming national debate. The future of our voting system should rest in the hands of voters next May.
Victory for violence against women campaign
Well, credit where it is due.
Yesterday, Amnesty’s End Violence Against Women campaign sent out this mail:
Dear Supporter,
I’m delighted to tell you that on Friday the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that she would extend the current No Recourse pilot project until March 2011. This enables women trapped in violent relationships by the ‘no recourse’ rule to access protection from which they would otherwise have been turned away.
Even better, she said that she would then be working on a permanent solution. The Home Secretary made this pledge despite the cuts climate, saying “some things are too important”. This is great news.
We will, of course, continue to try to work with the government to ensure that the project addresses some of the weaknesses in the current pilot, but this announcement is a major step forward that will give hundreds of women safety over the coming months, and beyond. Definitely something to celebrate.
This is good news for hundreds, maybe thousands of women across the country.
The ‘No Recourse’ rule was particularly harsh to immigrant women.
As the WRC explains:
Many women come to the UK, often legally, in the hope of improving their lives. They may come on temporary work permits, student visas or spousal visas. Some women come to the UK to marry. The ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule says that a woman in this position – even if she’s married to a British citizen – is not entitled to certain state benefits, including housing benefit and income support.
But these are the benefits a woman must be able to claim to get a place in a refuge if she needs to escape violence. As a result, many newly-married women in the UK are trapped in violent marriages and even if they do muster the courage to seek help from the authorities, they are simply turned away.
While this was a campaign that many Labour MPs (especially John McDonnell) supported and campaigned on, the last Labour government (to their shame) didn’t say much on this issue.
(via the F Word)
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» Cameron is right: Pakistan does sponsor terrorism
» Where does Labour go from here?
» Why our immigration system needs an overhaul
» What do those five days tell us about the Coalition?
» Why forcing over 65s to retire is like being sacked for your looks
» I would do anything for voting reform (but I won’t do that)
» Isn’t it time Labour centrists admit they lost the election?
» Why does Nick Clegg keep misleading us about the economy?
» Why we should welcome Cameron’s comments on Gaza
» Conservative council makes the vulnerable face most cuts
» Elton does Orwell? Sorry, that’s just wrong
|
34 Comments 22 Comments 7 Comments 46 Comments 17 Comments 67 Comments 15 Comments 76 Comments 11 Comments 22 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » PDF posted on D-Miliband also confirms support for gay marriage » damon posted on Why our immigration system needs an overhaul » Bob B posted on Where does Labour go from here? » Bob B posted on Polls shows voters turn on the Coalition » Mr S. Pill posted on Polls shows voters turn on the Coalition » Cassandrina posted on Polls shows voters turn on the Coalition » thomas posted on Where does Labour go from here? » earwicga posted on Ed Miliband hints at gay marriage support too » Sunny Hundal posted on Ed Miliband hints at gay marriage support too » Bob B posted on Why it became Michael Gove's awful month » Sally posted on Where does Labour go from here? » Bob posted on Contrary to the media, the sex industry doesn't empower women » Sally posted on Why it became Michael Gove's awful month » andrew posted on Why it became Michael Gove's awful month » Bob B posted on Contrary to the media, the sex industry doesn't empower women |
