I thought there were some interesting nuances in the language Nick used today, particularly ramping up the idea that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are “staunch opponents” rather than two parties working together. Suits me, I must say.

Two staunch opponents, working together to find answers to the most critical questions facing Britain today, pioneering major reforms that will stand the test of time. That’s what this Coalition has always been about – and it’s what it must continue to be about.

Conservative backbenchers have not shown themselves at their best over the last few weeks, to put it mildly. The likes of Gerald Howarth and Sir Tony Baldry have put paid to any claims that the Conservative Party is modern. Howarth’s comments about “aggressive homosexuals” belongs in a 1970s sitcom – and not a good one at that.

Today felt a bit like Nick saying “It’s ok, Don’t worry, there’s still a responsible adult around to look after things while the toddlers squabble.”  He gave three reassurances:

• The Coalition will last until 2015
• Our priority is the economy
• We will remain anchored in the centre

I have never thought leaving the coalition was a realistic option, for the very reason Nick pointed out:

The idea that the Liberal Democrats could suddenly win back those people who have never liked us going into government with the Conservatives is nonsense. As if we could pull the wool over people’s eyes, using an early exit to somehow erase the previous four and a half years.

And, frankly, that isn’t what we want. The Liberal Democrats look forward to fighting the next election as a party of government, on our record in government, and with a distinct vision of our own for the next government – having seen this one through until the end.

And in this section, he made it clear that he didn’t expect the next to years to be plain sailing – and nor were the Liberal Democrats going to take all the blame for the compromises made. Maybe we’re going to get a bit more assertive about the daft Tory ideas that we’ve stopped. I’m sure there must be more than restricting child benefit to two children and taking Housing Benefit from under 25s.

It won’t all be plain-sailing.

Some of the most divisive issues – like the UK’s role in Europe – are not going to go away.

We also have to be realistic about the other challenges that come with the later stages of Coalition. As we head towards the election there will be increasing pressure on David Cameron and myself to act as party leaders as much as PM and DPM: pressure to put party before nation. And I don’t pretend I won’t relish the moment I can hit the campaign trail on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the run up to the General Election.

But here’s the bigger truth: whether you are the larger or smaller party, the fact is governing together in the public interest carries a cost. Making compromises; doing things you find uncomfortable; challenging some of your traditional support – these are the dilemmas the Conservatives are coming to terms with, just as my party has had to.

There was plenty to satisfy “stronger economy and fairer society” bingo players today, but also that “governing in the centre ground” phrase was back. I’m not sure it’s either helpful or accurate to suggest that Ed Miliband’s Labour party is in any way left wing. You certainly can’t trust them with the purse strings, but they’d faint if they met a proper socialist. There’s some mixed messaging, too. Either Ed Balls loves the City and heads there on prawn cocktail charm offensives or the party is left wing. You can’t have both. Surely “they screwed up the banking system and spent all the money” is enough?

He also highlights welfare fraud and immigration abuse, both issues of the right with which both Labour and Tories are associated. I wish we could just stick to being Liberal Democrat about them. There is no evidence to suggest widespread fraud in the welfare system and surely we should be sorting out our disgraceful immigration system by making it fairer.

He topped and tailed his speech by talking about the parliamentary game playing of the last few weeks. Everybody knows that it’s not the Liberal Democrats who have been showing themselves up, as our Nick Thornsby wrote so eloquently on Conservative Home.

One final interesting thing – how come he’s started using the term “gay marriage?” Maybe I’m so attuned to the phrase “equal marriage” that it just sounds strange.

There was a lot of sensible stuff in the speech, particularly on the economy. I’ll let Nick have the last word:

Our priorities must be people’s priorities: boosting business, creating jobs, helping with the cost of living.

On the big ticket items the Coalition parties must continue to find a way forward together. Just as we have done on cutting income tax; dealing with the deficit; creating a million new jobs; transforming the education and welfare systems; providing unprecedented guarantees – £50bn worth – for infrastructure and new homes; greening our economy; creating record numbers of apprenticeships…

And there must be no doubt that this Coalition remains united on the end we all seek:

A stronger, rebalanced economy, built on sound public finances, with opportunities spread to every corner of the UK.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

The damage that has been done to the Tories’ standing in the country over this issue can be seen in the latest Survation poll that has UKIP on 22% of the vote. This is only two per cent behind the Conservatives and if repeated at the next general election would result in a loss of around a hundred Tory seats.

UKIP would be unlikely to elect more than one or two MPs and quite possibly would end up with no representation whatsoever. The main beneficiaries would be Labour and the Liberal Democrats.  The former would be left with a crushing majority on a relatively low share of the vote. The Lib Dems would wind up with much the same number of MPs as now due to gains from the Conservatives counterbalancing losses to Labour.

The effect on the Conservative party would be to eliminate a large chunk of their more liberal MPs and hand power to the right. The average ukipper might very well see this as mission accomplished. They would have had a similar effect on the Tories as militant trade unionists had on the Labour party in the late 1970s.

The choice for centrists in the Conservative party after the next general election may very well end up being similar to the choice that faced the social democrats in Labour after 1979. Should they stay put in the hope that sanity returns to their party in a decade or two’s time or should they strike out and try to break the mould of British politics?

If a sizeable chunk of Liberal Democrats are left after the election then at least some of the liberal-minded Tories might opt to dissolve their partnership with the Conservatives and form a new alliance. A hundred years ago the Conservative and Unionist party was formed from a merger of Conservatives and renegade Liberal Unionists. The ultimate result of the rise of UKIP could be to send the liberal wing of the Tories back home.

Of course all of this is predicated on UKIP still being a force to be reckoned with by the time of the next general election. It might not be. The Conservatives could recover their discipline and some fresh calamity could befall one of the other parties.

Whether the scenario painted above comes to pass is simply a matter of how far the Tory right are prepared to go along their current direction of travel.

* Andrew Chamberlain is a freelance journalist and Liberal Democrat member and activist from Ayrshire. He was a councillor from 2007-2012.

How did Liberal Democrat MPs vote on the Third Reading?

There were no huge surprises – and given that 11 had voted on an amendment, which was defeated, to give registrars an opt out from marrying same sex couples on religious grounds, the fact that only 4 actually voted against the Third Reading was better than some had expected. Simon Hughes and Tim Farron were two high profile abstainers. They clearly struggled with the issue. Simon’s speech in the debate on Monday night showed his inner conflict:

 First, I have struggled with the issue of sexuality since I was a teenager, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). I remember that at school it was not an easy issue in the slightest. Everybody knew that there were gay people at school, but it was never taught or spoken about formally. Secondly, I am chair of the board of governors of a Church of England primary school. Thirdly, I am a trustee of a Church of England secondary school. We have excellent teachers who do their jobs very well, but I have to say that there is still some nervousness.

It  is a valid point that kids in a similar position at school today might, because of legislation like this, have an easier time of it. Some people in the party will undoubtedly and understandably feel let down and angry by their choice.  I will take comfort from the fact that they didn’t obstruct the bill, nor did they put it in any danger of not being passed. I’m not going to stop liking them or working with them just because of this vote. Life is too short for that. I am a particular admirer of Sarah Teather’s passionate commitment to improving support for those in the immigration system. Votes on this issue do not cancel out good work in other areas.

As I said yesterday, I think it’s also important to note that all Liberal Democrats MPs have been nothing but respectful in their public comments on this matter. There has been much to cause offence coming from the Tory benches, but not from ours.

So, the summary:

Against

As before, Alan Beith, Gordon Birtwistle, John Pugh and Sarah Teather

Absentions

Simon Hughes, Tim Farron

Unclear

David Ward hadn’t voted on anything all week so may not have been in Parliament. Sir Robert Smith was there on Monday, but it’s unclear whether he abstained or was absent last night. (Update: he was absent, travelling back to Scotland).

In favour

The remaining 43. We can add to them 5 MPs who were not there for various good reasons and who had otherwise expressed support. Bob Russell, who was telling, had also told the Coalition for Equal marriage he was in favour. So, 49 of our 57 are unequivocally in support of the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone emails party members

Today we took a huge step forward for equality as MPs voted overwhelmingly to support equal marriage. I am proud that we, as Liberal Democrats, began this in Government and tonight were supported across the House. We all played our part, and you can be confident that we wouldn’t be where we are now without our party in the Coalition Government.

I know many of you have been following the debate closely and adding your voice to the campaign. Thank you.

But our LGBT+ friends and family can’t go to the register office just yet.  The next stage is the House of Lords.

For now though, with the Bill safely through the House of Commons, let’s take a moment to reflect on this victory for equality and celebrate those who made this possible. Make sure you tell all your friends on Twitter.

Best wishes,

Lynne Featherstone MP

One of those occasions that I as a Scottish member doesn’t really mind getting an email that doesn’t apply to Scotland.

I think we should also acknowledge the input of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats in this, from bringing the motion on equal marriage to Conference, to engaging with our MPs and informing them in the run up to this debate. It’s taken many dedicated, patient and painstaking hours of work and we wouldn’t be here without them either.

The best speech of the debate

Julian Huppert was the Liberal Democrat star of the debate for me, over the whole two days and for more than the looks of horror and bemusement when offensive comments were made by Tory MPs. He supported amendments allowing humanist celebrants to conduct marriages and in support of transgender people. Sadly, these were not put to the vote because of Government objections, but he explains very well the legal anomalies and real hurt experienced by transgender people:

One problem that many transgender people face is when their marriage is stolen from them. A number of people are in a perfectly stable and loving married couple, one of whom wishes to transition. I know a number of people in that category. As it happens, the ones I know have been male to female transitions, but that is not uniquely so at all. Under the current law, for somebody to transition, they have to end the marriage. We, the state, say to people who still love each other, “You must get a divorce and break your marriage.” They were allowed a civil partnership when those were introduced, but they still have to go through that process, which is quite an upsetting thing to do.

I would recommend you watch the whole thing here from about 16:27 in. Julian illustrates very well  and very practically the problems that trans people face on a daily basis. These issues need resolving and it’s important that people become more aware of them.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Up to 600 Afghan interpreters who worked alongside British troops are to be given the right to live in the UK, government sources have confirmed.

The plan marks a climbdown from ministers who had decided they should not get the same UK resettlement rights as interpreters in the Iraq conflict.

Afghan interpreters who worked on the front line for a year or more will initially be offered a five-year visa.

This is something, as we reported 3 weeks ago, that Nick Clegg and Paddy Ashdown have been arguing for.

Earlier this week, Paddy Ashdown said that it was Downing Street that was blocking UK visas for the interpreters. Now it seems that arguments from Nick Clegg, Paddy and other Liberal Democrats have won the day.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary published in print or online.

Next stop for this measure is the House of Lords after the recess on 3 June.

There will certainly be challenges to it there but the momentum from the last two days of debate and the fact that it was passed by such a large majority bodes well.

We can be sure that without the Liberal Democrats, the measure would not have made it even on to the Commons agenda, given the opposition from within Conservative ranks.

The co-operation across the House by those in all parties who want to see this pass restored my faith in genuine cross party working on legislation. It was allvery grown up. I just wish we saw more of it. The Labour Party could have decided to be silly but worked to sort the civil partnerships issue to their credit.

I have lingering concerns that Maria Miller & Helen Grant made more of a meal of that and the issue of humanist weddings than was strictly necessary. However, this is a time to celebrate. Work on these issues will continue.

Tonight is a night for high fiving Nick Clegg. He was the leader who was not afraid to proudly back same sex marriage. Then Lynne Featherstone set the process in motion as a minister. And Stephen Williams, Greg Mulholland & Julian Huppert have been particularly marvellous in the debates he last two days, trying to secure humanist ceremonies and sort out the anomalies that cause so much heartbreak when one party to a marriage changes gender.

Now, what of those of our MPs who voted in a way that those of us who support equal marriage disagree with? Well, some of us may well be annoyed with them, and have told them so. We’ll get through it, though. Especially as none of them expressed themselves in anything other than a genuine & respectful manner. Some people have said that they won’t help them win re-election. that would be counter productive. Refusing to campaign for them risks them being replaced by right wing Tories with views like those of Gerald “aggressive homosexuals” Howarth or Dominic “tiddlywinks” Grieve.

So let’s celebrate,thank those who have made this happen and then put our energies in to making sure this Bill goes all the way to Royal Assent.

We can all then look forward to the first marriages being conducted.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

The SNP controlled Scottish Parliament Education & Culture Committee has published a report, critical of cuts at BBC Scotland, with the implication that the Scottish arm of the Corporation would be unable to produce adequate coverage of the 2014 Commonwealth Games and the independence referendum.

The Committee forgets that BBC Scotland is one part of a much bigger organisation. Indeed, the shiny new HQ at Pacific Quay isn’t just home to BBC Scotland, it’s full of production staff for ‘UK’ based programmes such as Question Time, The One Show, News, as well as BBC Alba. It’s part of a global brand, catering not just for Scottish viewers, but those in Scotland, England and beyond! Waterloo Road, Case Histories and Wallander are a few of BBC Scotland’s productions.

The Committee has ignored assurances from senior BBC management regarding their own monitoring procedure to ensure maintenance of the quality of outputs post-cuts. Of course cuts are a concern, especially when we see the resources that are being poured into other parts of the organisation such as at Media City in Salford. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t an ulterior motive behind the Committee’s decision.

The SNP has continually criticised the BBC and their independence debate coverage, so it’s not a surprise that the Committee has failed to focus on other broadcasters in Scotland, particularly the other public broadcaster, Channel 4. Nor has there been an equivalent examination into the available resources of ITV licence holder, STV, but then what would be the merit in asking about the resources of a Scottish broadcaster £45m in debt!

These developments are a grave concern; that a group of 9 MSPs (5 SNP, 2 Lab, 1 LD, 1 Con) believe they have the right to ‘monitor’ the BBC, something which goes beyond the remit of elected politicians in the UK. Would it not be more productive for them to examine the potential implications of independence on Scottish broadcasting and how the BBC in Scotland would then be able to cover such events as the Games with a lack of UK resources to draw on?

Oppressive regimes around the world ‘monitor’ media at the behest of governments and politicians. When Churchill wanted the BBC to put out wartime propaganda, Lord Reith (then head of the BBC) refused, pointing out that the BBC is, and must remain, impartial. Today it remains separate from the government and independent. Would this Committee seek to overturn this and have the BBC in Scotland become a puppet of the state?

* Andrew Tibbs is the Vice-Convener of Edinburgh North East and Leith Liberal Democrats

In addition to the 11 who voted in favour of registrars being able to exempt themselves from conducting same sex marriages, there were two abstentions, from Vince Cable and Mark Williams. We had 36 voting in favour and Sir Bob Russell was telling.

The next vote was on whether marriage between a man and a woman should be made a protected characteristic of a religion in terms of the Equality Act 2010.  Eight of our MPs voted in favour with most voting against:

Alan Beith

Gordon Birtwistle

Tim Farron

John Hemming

Simon Hughes

John Pugh

Sarah Teather

Mark Williams.

Three MPs who had voted in favour of the opt-out for registrars voted against this. They were Duncan Hames, Norman Baker and Paul Burstow. Mulholland abstained.

On the next vote, nine Liberal Democrats voted for protection for those public servants who refused to conduct same sex marriages. They were:

Alan Beith

Gordon Birtwistle

Tim Farron

Sir Nick Harvey

John Hemming

Simon Hughes

Greg Mulholland

John Pugh

Sarah Teather

Only three MPs supported Tim Loughton’s attempt to introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples as part of the Bill now rather than wait for the review. They were Alan Beith, Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland, who made a long and detailed speech on the subject.

Seven MPs appear to have been absent because they don’t seem to have voted on anything. They are:

Malcolm Bruce – on constituency business, although he definitely supports the bill, because he told me so yesterday.

Mike Hancock – ill

Mark Hunter – believed to be absent with permission of whips.

Norman Lamb – out of the country on ministerial business but would have voted with Government  - see comment below

John Leech – but his support for the bill is clear.

David Ward

Jenny Willott – on maternity leave, although she is also in favour of the Bill.

I should point out that none of these votes should be considered as an official rebellion. MPs were not whipped, as I reported last week.  However, readers and particularly Liberal Democrat members will no doubt have their own opinions on the way MPs voted.

There are more amendments coming up today – some proposed by Stephen Williams and Julian Huppert on such subjects as legalisation of humanist weddings.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Today I will stand up in the chamber of the House of Lords to take part in the Second Reading debate of the Bill, the first major stage in the passage of a Bill. I shall be immensely proud as this is as the results of Lib Dems in government.

Labour and the Conservatives ducked reform of the care system for decades and it was Lib Dem Minister Paul Burstow who had the will and political capital in the Department of Health and with the care sector to push it following a report by the Law Commission. Norman Lamb picked it up when he was appointed, putting his mark on it by including the focus on integration of care and health services.

The Bill implements a number of the recommendations of the Francis Report to ensure that the disgraceful failures at Mid-Staffordshire are never repeated. These include Ofsted-style ratings for hospitals and care homes and a new Chief Inspector of Hospitals in the Care Quality Commission with the power to take action when failures such as those as Mid Staffs are identified.

There will never be enough money in the system, and much as I regret it, making social care free for all is not an option for now. But there will now be a cap on care costs, above which the local authority will step in. This was proposed by economist Andrew Dilnot and will avoid people facing catastrophic costs. Currently anyone with assets of £23,250 (including your property) is responsible for paying for their social care. This will rise to £118,000, so people will get help much earlier.

The Bill is not perfect and it is only at the beginning of its legislative journey from the Lords to the Commons and then into law. I will keep you posted on its progress, but this is a Bill we can really welcome.

* Baroness Judith Jolly is Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Health and Social Care.

Labour: 35% (Survation 39% (YouGov)
Conservatives: 24% (S), 31% (YG)
Lib Dems: 11% (S), 10% (YG)
Ukip: 22% (S), 14% (YG)

As Anthony Wells points out, Survation asks whether people will vote Ukip (most other firms just ask about the main three parties and ‘Others’) so usually gets the highest Ukip poll numbers. This latest survey is in line with the bounce other firms have shown and which the perceived winner of an election often records.

Unsurprisingly, it’s Survation’s poll which has attracted most interest because it shows a gap if just 2% between the Tories and Ukip. Cue cries of ‘Tory meltdown!, ‘Cameron in crisis!’ and every other journalistic cliche.

At the risk of precipitating on the parade of those who love nothing better than to indulge in over-excited hyper-speculation, can I make the following point. Or rather can I ask the following question: Does Nate Silver mean nothing to you? Did he write in vain?

One of the very simple — I mean it: really simple — points he made in the run-up to the last US presidential election was that national poll ratings are not the best way of judging who was most likely to emerge the winner. Throughout that election campaign journalists and commentators (who are paid to understand this stuff and enlighten the public) termed the contest a ‘dead-heat’ on the basis that national polls showed a consistent but narrow Obama lead that was within the margin of error. Yet Nate Silver’s analysis of individual state polls showed Obama with an unwaveringly firm hold on the US electoral college.

Nate’s confident prediction was acclaimed here in the UK. Yet the lessons for us here are now routinely ignored. Just as the US decides its President through an electoral college, we decide our government through electing constituency MPs. The only way to work out who’s actually most likely to form the next government is to undertake more regional polling and then to extrapolate from that the likely number of MPs for each party, while also weighting for other facts such as incumbency boosts (which disproportionately aid the Lib Dems and first-term MPs). But, as I wrote last November:

The blunt reality is that the news media craves excitement more than it hungers for truth. It is much cheaper and easier to commission a monthly survey and then inflate the results way beyond what the data should allow. We’ve all seen the kinds of headlines newspapers revel in — ‘Poll blow to Tories as support plunges 1%’, ‘Labour to win 100+ majority says latest exclusive poll’ — and yet journalists continue to write them even though they know deep down how flimsy the evidence is.

I’ve read lots of adulation of Nate Silver in the British media in the past 24 hours. I wonder if any of those journalists who’ve penned those articles have thought, even for a moment: I wish I had the confidence to write about polls with the same kind of rigour he does. I’m not holding my breath.

(I’m glad I didn’t hold my breath.)

The reality is that first-past-the-post entrenches the status quo. If the Survation poll were actually to be reflected at a general election, then Ukip would (at least according to Electoral Calculus’s predictor) gain one MP in return for their 22% of the vote. Shades of the Liberal/SDP Alliance in 1983. Labour would win a majority of 122. (And for those who half-wish for such an outcome to show up the bankruptcy of our electoral system, let’s remember: the same prophesies were made in the 1980s, and 30 years later we’re still nowhere nearer to winning that argument.)

The easiest thing to write about the next election is that “it’s completely unpredictable”. That’s only half-true, though. For sure, we don’t know if the Ukip-mania will last for another two years; and if it does quite how that will play out in relation to the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem votes. That is unpredictable. But we can be sure that Ukip won’t storm the House of Commons. The Ukip phenomenon is interesting in all sorts of ways. But as for the next House of Commons, Plaid Cymru is more significant than Ukip will be.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

There is still a further day of debate tomorrow, though, and further amendments to be debated.

One of the amendments discussed today, defeated by 340 votes to 150 in favour, was to allow registrars to exempt themselves from marrying same sex couples. Eleven Liberal Democrat MPs voted in favour of this. They were:

Norman Baker

Alan Beith

Gordon Birtwistle

Paul Burstow

Tim Farron

Andrew George

Duncan Hames

Simon Hughes

John Pugh

Sarah Teather

Steve Webb

A few early comments from members. Firstly Fernando North:

I am remembering their names as I will remind them at election time why I will not help reelect them. #ThisIsPersonal. This may be a matter of conscience for the MPs involved but for me it is intensively personal. Their conscience is denying my happiness in defiance of the Harm Principle-that most sacred of Liberal Principles.

Roger Reeves’ husband Andrew died almost two years ago. As London Campaigns Officer, he helped get Sarah Teather elected. Roger said tonight:

I am absolutely shocked by this. A marriage is to one you love. No matter what sex they are.

Geoffrey Payne, a regular commenter on this site said:

 I am surprised and disappointed that there are so many. I wonder if any abstained as well. I can’t see any of them joining the Tories on other issues they are usually good. Good being a relative term compared to their colleagues. They all supported secret courts of course.

Miranda Roberts said:

Surely we believe that all council employees should provide services to all residents without regard to gender, race, age etc? Horrible to see Lib Dems saying that sexuality should be used as grounds to deny people access to a government service.

Stephen Glenn added:

Imagine if council housing officers denied same-sex couples social housing?

Or a DWP clerk refused to let a gay person sign on? Which seeing as I’ve applied to a fair number of LGBT bodies while looking for work would have been known (guessed).

These are public servants and in some places especially the rural ones there may only be one registrar for miles around or on the island. If that person objects people are denied the fully legal service.

There are two sides to every story, though.  Mike Bird said:

We all seemed to agree that religious organisations shouldn’t be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, so it seems odd to see a lot of anger at Tim and others for allowing people in the public sector to make the same decisions. I don’t see why people who’ve ended up in different lines of work should have different religious freedoms unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Chris Wiggin, also in support said:

If you want MPs to vote a certain way then they should be whipped. Decision not to whip should be questioned, not the MPs themselves who were told they could vote as they wish. There was criticism last week of the decision not to whip, as there was at the previous vote.

We don’t want to do too much of the counting of the poultry while still sitting on the eggs, but it does look like we’ll have something to celebrate tomorrow, given the large majorities against the “anti” amendments tonight. There will, however, be considerable disappointment amongst many activists that eleven of our MPs voted for this amendment. In their defence, they will no doubt argue that the people seeking the service wouldn’t be denied it as another alternative would be found. Whether they could guarantee that in rural areas, though, I’m not so sure.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

It will sadly see the ultimate opportunity for those MPs who remain implacably behind the times in opposition to equality and fairness in the United Kingdom to block progress. It is also the opportunity for the sun to shine on those MPs who vote in favour of equality, fairness, human rights, respect and love. LGBT+ people want to celebrate and share their love just like any other couple would, and this would enable Britain to once again go one further step on the road to re-joining the 14 or so other countries who have already made marriage equality a standard bearer as a beacon of equality. The House of Lords is yet to come and the LGBT+ will be ready for that challenge too!

The campaign has been fraught with debate from all sides, but LGBT+ has tried desperately to listen to all sides, intellectually and constructively both in responding and replying to, frankly, discriminatory views which have been difficult for us to hear. However, now is the time for every one of our MPs to fulfil the Preamble to our Constitution. And if they don’t know it by now, I’ll repeat it again:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

When our MPs go through the lobbies for the third reading vote, I hope this article resonates in their minds and souls. We all accept that people have consciences, and some with very firm beliefs of all different kinds, but when your party has made its views clear, as our Conference did in 2010 when it overwhelmingly endorsed equal marriage,  then you should not go against it lightly.

If Liberal Democrat MPs fail to support this bill, it will be difficult for those who believe in equality to campaign for them in 2015 and beyond.  Any MPs who vote in favour of wrecking amendments, based on religious dogma in the face of equality will be letting the Party down. Few of us will want to help them in the future.

We are the party of equality and fairness for every citizen in the UK.  This overdue bill on same-sex marriage is one which Liberal Democrat MPs should naturally support. Please Members of Parliament, support all our LGBT+ members and supporters, and ensure that this is a clear victory for the Liberal Democrats in our fight for a fairer society.

This week, in Britain, the debate returns to the House of Commons. I have no doubt that a significant majority of MPs are in favour of equal marriage. But let’s also be in no doubt that a small number of out of touch Tory MPs are using any and all means at their disposal to disrupt and derail this historic legislation. How David Cameron deals with these detractors will be a litmus test for his leadership as he tries to re-establish control over his fractious party.

I don’t doubt the Prime Ministers personal commitment to delivering equal marriage. My concern is that Cameron is in danger of being buffeted by the storms raging within his disunited party. Let’s be clear, Cameron’s party is at war – the Compassionate Conservatives versus the Toxic Tories. They seem unable to agree a narrative in response to the threat, as they see it, from the rise of UKIP and the “swivel-eyed-loons” inside and outside the ranks of Conservative MPs are pushing for an ever more right-wing agenda – like the ditching of equal marriage and an immediate referendum on membership of the EU.

The Conservative Party of 2013 is not the same party that entered the Coalition Government in May 2010. David Cameron promised the British people a centrist approach – a compassionate Conservative Party that was outward looking, internationalist and environmentally savvy. Three years later we have a Tory party that reverted to type, turned inward and speaks to its own shibboleths. Today’s Tories seem ungovernable and reluctant to govern.

It would be a tragedy if, as the rest of the world makes progress on equal marriage, the internal machinations of a Conservative Party at war cause the Equal Marriage Bill to be derailed in Britain. To avoid this outcome the Prime Minister may have to accept that there are likely to be majorities in the House of Commons for opposite sex civil partnerships, humanist weddings as well as equal marriage for gay and lesbian people. He should welcome these changes.

David Cameron now faces a fundamental choice. He can continue to allow his party to lurch to the right and further diminish his chances of spending another five years in Number 10 or he can deliver the Conservative Party that he promised the British people in 2010.

What the Prime Minister does over the next three days will make a huge difference to the millions of gay and lesbian people in Britain, but it will also tell us a lot about the direction of his party.

* Stephen Gilbert is the Liberal Democrat MP for St Austell & Newquay and was the first MP to propose equal marriage at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in September 2010.

Being a feminist is not scary. It’s purely about women and men being treated equally before the law and given equal opportunities and a level playing field.

So I was very pleased to see an interview with Jo Swinson in Saturday’s Guardian in which she happily and unashamedly used the F word and I’d defy anybody to find anything remotely worrying in what she said.

Jo talked about how excited and delighted she was to be putting through legislation on shared parental leave:

The piece of legislation that I’m so excited and delighted to be doing is shared parental leave.” She’s helped push through a system that will allow new parents to choose how they share a year’s worth of leave after the birth of their child. ”And changing that legislation is a really good example of how we’re not going to change culture overnight, but how the government has a role to make sure the structures in place reflect modern living.

She was asked if a male MP would have fought as hard for this legislation, which was slightly exasperating. A tiny bit of research would have shown that Jo has not been the only driving force behind it – it’s been something championed by Nick Clegg for a long time, too.

Wiseman put the idea to Jo that men are in politics for the power, women to make a difference:

She sighs, and I blush. “I’m a massive feminist,” she says, gesticulating precisely, eye contact unfaltering, “but I think it’s a little unfair on the other sex saying they’re not in it to change the world.”

How do we get more women into the House of Commons?

 ”I think we need the right solution for the right problem,” she says opaquely. “And it might not be the same for every party. So if there is sexism in the selection process then maybe you do need quotas. But in our party, the problem was far too few women candidates coming forward for seats.” She says they’re making progress with a leadership programme, encouraging people from under-represented backgrounds to become MPs, but it all comes back to “wider issues around the voting system, and challenges around getting equality within politics”.

It was particularly good to see that the interviewer, Eva Wiseman, admit to changing her opinion and becoming more sympathetic towards the Body Confidence campaign, which has had some success in the past 18 months:

It’s this sluggish move forward she’s particularly making me aware of – first the acknowledgement that there’s a problem, and then the investigation into what brought us to this point, and then, finally, the slow fight, whether against sexual harassment at work or negative body image. Since the body-image inquiry, the marketing director of Boots says that what was acceptable 18 months ago in terms of manipulating and “airbrushing” images is not acceptable now, and I believe her. A politician’s life moves fast, I realise, but the changes they make can feel excruciatingly slow. “The debate is changing,” Swinson says, “because people want it to change.”

You can read the whole article here.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings