The piece says:
The electoral system, with its inherent unfairness for a party with widespread but not concentrated support like the Lib Dems was always going to end up with the Liberal Democrats in bed with either Labour or the Conservatives in a hung parliament.
The Liberal Democrats made the right choice in partner no matter how uncomfortable it feels to have a work and pensions secretary (Iain Duncan Smith) who disagreed with equal parental rights for lesbian couples, a Conservative party chairman who once claimed the abolition of section 28 meant children were being “propositioned” for gay relationships (Sayeeda Warsi), or a minister for equality (Theresa May) who has consistently (bar the crucial civil partnership act) voted against gay rights -although she does seem an odd choice. Some might be upset that we have gone from three openly gay cabinet ministers to none.
An alliance with Labour had that party agreed to it would have resulted in an unstable Government and a hasty second general election. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are broke while the Tories would have relied on Lord Ashcroft’s cash.
You can read the full piece here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
Peter Martin
8 Comments
I’ve always had a lot of respect for Pink News and as usual they’re talking a great deal of sense, especially in their observations on the likely outcome if we had walked away from coalition (an unstable minority govt. followed swiftly by an election and a Tory majority govt.).
If they can give us a chance to make this coalition work, even after everything the LGBT community have historically had to put up with from the Conservatives and with the recent comments from Chris Grayling etc, then hopefully our own members will look at the big picture and be open-minded too.
It certainly isn’t ideal, is it. What concerns me most is the emphasis on “family”, by which they mean a very narrowly defined, 1 man, 1 woman, 2 kids living in suburban semi. My cousin is a divorced mother and she’s raised her daughter great. I’ve seen old fashioned families that have produced desperately unhappy or anti social children; how could two homosexual parents (or even a divorced homosexual parent coping on their own) do any worse? The idea that that is the only way to bring up children is frankly ludicrous in this day and age.
@ Catherine: Apologies for the double post, but it looks like Grayling has been sidelined in the new ministry. Wonder if he’ll get some minor job but he was in line to be Home Secretary.
@ Thomas: Yes, I’m very pleased that Chris Grayling has been sidelined though tbh I would’ve expected Cameron to do that even if he’d won a majority as Grayling wasn’t exactly performing well with the media 😉 I think he’s got a minor job at Work & Pensions, alongside our Steve Webb which should be an, er, interesting combination!
I’m less pleased about Theresa May’s appointment as Home Secretary and especially as Equality Minister as she doesn’t have a great voting record about that kind of thing, but I’m prepared to keep an open mind and keep fingers crossed that either she’s changed her attitude somewhat or else at least she’ll be constrained in her actions by the spirit of the coalition deal.
@Catherine
But TM did also diagnose the Tory’s “nasty party” problem. Perhaps she may have examined her own conscience, too. Give it time.
@ Paul McKeown – yes, that’s true. As I said I’ll keep and open mind and crossed fingers, and after all people do go on philosophical journeys and genuinely change their positions. Portillo did, and apparently IDS has done so (somewhat) too. Completely agree re. “give it time”.
Am I the only one who is bored and a little concerned by the repeated “civil partnership” methaphor that has accompanied the coalition, and especially the duel-leaders’ press conference.
Not only is patronising, it is also predictable and lame.
Am I the only one who is bored and a little concerned by the repeated “civil partnership” methaphor that has accompanied the coalition, and especially the duel-leaders’ press conference?
Not only is patronising, it is also predictable and lame.