What is in Kelvin's Head?

Alternative Queen’s Speech

04/06/2014

Here is an Alternative Queen’s Speech – the things that I’d have liked to hear from the Queen in the House of Commons today and what I’d have asked Her Majesty to say if I were the Prime Minister.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, my government will work in the year ahead for the wellbeing of the people of this country. It shall continue to pursue economic prosperity but shall see this within the context of what may be identified as the common good.

My government will seek to reduce both relative and absolute poverty and seek to bring an end to the culture of Food Bank Britain. It will pay appropriate benefits to those in need in a timely fashion.

My government shall work towards a new constitutional settlement in order to bring stability to the nation. To this end, it shall prepare legislation which will be presented in Westminster if the referendum on Scottish Independence is not passed in September 2014. This legislation will set out a new constitutional framework for a federal United Kingdom with a written constitution establishing this nation’s sovereignty within the European Union. This will introduce a new parliament for England based in the city of York. It will abolish the House of Lords and establish a new honour of Royal Commissioner of the United Kingdom which all current members of the House of Lords will receive. Members of the new Royal Commission shall be called upon to give evidence according to their speciality during increased pre-legislative scrutiny for four parliaments in Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland. The four parliaments shall act as unicameral assemblies in all matters excepting those relating to foreign policy, the constitution, the monarchy, registration of political parties, international trade, currency and economic policy, defence, energy policy, climate change issues, declarations of war and treason. These matters shall be the preserve of the House of Commons, entirely comprised of elected members from across the United Kingdom. If the people of Scotland reject the proposals for an independent Scotland in September 2014 then these new legislative developments will be put to all the people of this country in a referendum on 24 March 2016 and my government will seek cross-party support for them.

My government will reform the national curriculum in England in the light of best practise in all parts of this kingdom in order to empower teachers and set them free from red tape. The new curriculum will establish what should be taught in schools whilst leaving teachers free to teach those subjects to the best of their ability and according to their professional judgement.

My government will introduce legislation to disestablish the Church of England and will consult on the best way of preserving the positive ethos which exists in many church schools when those schools are given over entirely to local authority control.

My government will introduce legislation to ensure that charitable status is removed from all charities which discriminate on the basis of the Protected Characteristics of other equality legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, religious charities which campaign against other protected characteristics in terms of age, gender, sexuality etc will automatically lose their charitable status.

My government, mindful of the number of citizens who now live in single households will begin a consultation on extending the Equality Act by introducing protections for single people particularly in relation to the provision of goods and services in the travel and hospitality industries.

My government will introduce a new law of copyright which is fit for the digital age which will include reducing the terms of copyright.

My government will ensure that no public money is spent on reparative (or gay conversion) therapy.

My government will establish mandatory sex education in all schools in England and remove the requirement for religious assemblies in schools. Legislation will be introduced to place a statutary duty on schools to review procedures to ensure the prevention of homophobic bullying. My government will clarify the law to ensure that teachers who ignore such bullying can be prosecuted under the same legislation as other forms of child neglect.

My government will continue to allocate 0.7 % of GDP to overseas development and shall engage in a consultation about how this money might be best distributed to ensure that this country does not aid discrimination, violence or corruption.

My government will continue to raise the threshold for income tax. Alongside this, my government has recognised the need for tax measures to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. To this end, my government will in the current year cut Value Added Tax by half, raising income tax in order to pay for this. The 50% band for income tax will be reestablished for all earning in excess of £100000 per year. My government will begin preparatory work for a further major tax reform by beginning a consultation on introducing a land value tax in order to replace Council Tax within the next 5 years. Furthermore my government will revive local government by removing all caps on revenue raising that have been imposed by central government.

My government will overhaul the laws on freedom of assembly and protest to ensure that all voices may be heard.

My government will reform the data protection laws beginning from the principal that all citizens are entitled to their own privacy.

My government will introduce proportional representation for all elections.

My government will abolish all University tuition fees.

My government will invest in research and development in Universities with the aim of establishing new generic drugs which will be free from pharmaceutical patents for the good not only of this country but for the wellbeing of the citizens of the world.

My government will establish and fund a new centre of expertise for open-source software and shall prefer to commission new public computer systems using such software.

My government will publish a national energy policy and invest in nuclear and renewable energy whilst outlawing fracking.

My government will raise the minimum wage to a new living wage.

My government is proud of the fact that it has introduced consolidated fares in the airline industry, ensuring that advertised fares include all booking fees and taxes. It will now introduce legislation to do the same for all arts productions, outlawing the practice of charging a separate booking fee on ticket prices.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

I pray that the blessing of the Eternal God may rest upon your counsels.

Alternative, federal UK, independence, politics, Queen’s Speech

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

David Evans

29/06/2015

I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  29/06/2015
  
  I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.
  
  I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    30/06/2015
    
    I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”
    
    You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.
    
    It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.
    
    Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.
    
    I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.
    
    Reply
    1. Graham Evans
      
      05/07/2015
      
      David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.
      
      Reply
      1. David Evans
        
        18/07/2015
        
        Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.
        
        However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.
Iain Brodie Browne

02/07/2015

Firstly thank you for your posting.
I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

Reply
Andy

18/07/2015

Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/07/2015
  
  Thanks for commenting, Andy.
  
  I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.
  
  When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.
  
  It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    18/07/2015
    
    Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.
    
    Reply
David Evans

13/11/2015

Kelvin,

It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

Reply
1. Graham Evans
  
  13/11/2015
  
  David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.
  
  Reply