The UK is slowly making its way towards allowing consensual marriage between adults, no matter who those adults happen to be. This is a good thing. Without qualifiers. It is just good. The current state of things can be simply summed up as “unjust” — or, to put it into British Political Terms, “not fair”.

But as the slow march towards equality continues, people continue to out themselves as bigots. That’s OK. Bigots are a part of life, and so long as bigots are increasingly marginalized, and bigotry continues to be less acceptable, they can serve as a barometer of our progress.

But sometimes the bigots are not inconsequential voices. Sometimes they are members of parliament; people who author, debate, and/or vote on laws. Bigoted MPs are not good. And some of them are saying things that truly piss me right the fuck off.

For instance, there was this article on the BBC, in which Defence Secretary Phil Hammond says:

There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage.

This anti-gay-marriage argument is one of the most common, and it is absolutely infuriating.

First, Hammond cannot even manage to make it for himself. He feels the need to disassociate with it, and claim it on the behalf of “many people”. So the whole thing begins with a bit of doublespeak, so that he can distance himself from the opinion when people call him out as a homophobe. Good politics, perhaps, but cowardly.

Secondly, it implies that the value that (some) people see in their marriage does not have to do with their partner, love, family, or commitment. It has to do with privilege. It states “I value my marriage because my ability to be in it makes me feel superior to other people.” Instead of a simple, straightforward dislike of people who are different, it is a belief that societal institutions that disenfranchise a segment of the population are good, right, and moral.

That, to me, is far more horrific.

Finally, I’m married. And I have never felt entirely comfortable being part of an institution which continues to enshrine inequality. I’m part of a “many people who are married” as well. Only, unlike Hammond’s “many”, mine believe that our marriages will gain meaning by being inclusive. My membership in the married club will be made all the better once the club is no longer exclusionary.

Today, the BBC published another story, of course. We can probably expect to see these every day between now and the first gay marriage in Britain. And each of them will feature Conservative politicians expressing their homophobia couched in terms that are meant to hide it.

And bravo to the Conservative politicians pushing this through despite this opposition. It can’t be easy for them.

Margaret Thatcher died today. And amongst the reaction, I see things like this: a street party in Brixton to celebrate; people taking absolute joy that “the witch is dead”, to quote one person.

(I’m leaving people quoted anonymous today, as I’m mostly taking the quotes from updates that are not necessarily public).

And I don’t get it.

Oh, I understand the animosity people here have towards her. And I understand the bit of a smile that can be generated when something bad befalls such a person — as a complete stranger and public figure who had long ago moved out of the public eye, the concept of Thatcher-as-person does not really seem to resonate with people my age or younger. You may remember her as Prime Minister if you were my age, but you would not have even been a teenager at the time.

Tony Blair even described having seen her on the newsstands as he was “growing up”, and he is nearing 60.

For those younger than me, it is difficult to believe that they have any real memory of Thatcher-the-Prime Minister, at all.

And so Thatcher today is largely a concept. Today’s Conservative Party blueprint. Privatisation. Union busting. Cutting benefits. And cognitively, I think Thatcher’s death is being processed as a death-of-the-concept.

But it’s not. Margaret Thatcher was a person. And today there was a death-of-the-person. And anybody who is cheering her death should take a sober second look at what they are cheering about. Because Conservatives? They think like this:

She was simply a towering colossus of British politics and, to Tories like myself, little short of godlike.

And this:

For my own part, there is no doubt in my mind that she literally SAVED THIS COUNTRY.

The person who died today looked like this:

She no longer participated in politics — the little dabbling she did had to stop due to health reasons. She had dementia. She was not making policy, advising on policy, making bold statements in the press, or doing anything that impacted other people’s lives anymore.

And the Thatcher years? They’re over twenty years behind us, and had been fading in the rearview mirror. David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, spent years trying to put distance between the Conservative Party he leads and the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher.

Today, the Thatcher that people are remembering looks like this:

And that Margaret Thatcher was not quietly succumbing to dementia in her old age. That Margaret Thatcher is the public figure; the conceptual Thatcher. The one that who is believed to have “literally SAVED THIS COUNTRY.”

As politicians of all stripes gather to say nice things about the woman that they despised in the late 1980s in the coming days, the government will be — as they always are — drafting policies, implementing policies, and authoring bills to be put before parliament.

And this government — this Conservative government, led by a man who was not yet a teenager when Thatcher took over the Conservative party, made of people who either participated in the Thatcher years, or decided to join the party based upon them — this government is being reminded of its only “glory days” in living memory: four consecutive election victories, and international influence.

So please, all you left-wingers out there taking joy in Thatcher’s death, imagine what your Conservative fellows are thinking. Imagine their rose-tinted memories, aided by comments like these from their enemies.

And remember that they’re the ones making the laws right now.

Edited to add that I don’t mean this in a don’t-speak-ill-of-the-dead sort of way.

Basically, stick to bashing her politics. Trash the street parties. You (if you’re a politically active person on the left) should be seeing this as a time for action, not celebration.

London has an election coming tomorrow, and your intrepid blogger has a vote.

As is his wont, he has decided to go through the candidates, and openly muse about why he should (or shouldn’t) vote for them.

We began this in part one, last week, with an intention to follow with parts two and three. But we ran into a problem: time and space.

After writing about Boris, we found ourselves with over 1,000 words (and not happy with the result). That still left two candidates. With obligations eating into our time, a deadline of election day (tomorrow), and other decisions that need to be made about tomorrow’s vote … well, we are revisiting our approach.

Here are our choices for mayor, ranked, with the reason for the ranking.

#1: Brian Paddick, Liberal Democrat.

The performance of the Liberal Democrat party as part of a coalition government has left me rather cold to casting votes in their favour. But, as described last week in Part 1, I am quite impressed with Paddick’s position, leaving him in top spot.

#2: Siobhan Benita, Independent.

Benita has some good ideas, but I remain unconvinced that she has the ability to actually make them a reality once in office. Her plans extend well beyond the mayor’s remit, and I have doubts about her ability to actually achieve what is laid out in her manifesto should she be elected.

#3 Ken Livingstone, Labour.

Ken, of course, was the mayor of London for two terms (2000-2008), and prior to that had served as the leader of the Greater London Council. Ken cares about the city. He has accomplished some fantastic things as mayor, particularly around public transport.

Of course, he has also had his share of missteps and controversy. I’m not sure I particularly like Ken.

#4 Boris Johnson, Conservative.

The incumbent, I have previously written (and deleted) 1,000 words on Boris’s campaign.

It comes down to this: Boris is running on his record, but he has done (almost) nothing during his time as mayor. He promises to do (pretty much) a further nothing for the next four years. It’s impressive that he manages to stretch that nothing into a nine-point plan, and a massive manifesto.

He is not a bad mayor, but he is not a good mayor. It seems to be more of a platform to give him visibility and exposure before an eventual bid for the Conservative Party leadership. One gets a sense the man is biding his time.

Between incumbency, competence, and being the only real right wing choice available (see below), Boris is probably back for a second term.

#5 Jenny Jones, Green Party.

My opinion of Jenny Jones, Green Party candidate for mayor, was built from a short conversation witnessed on Twitter. Being asked her opinion on science, and its impact on government policy, Ms. Jones replied that she was a big fan of science. Her opposition to genetically modified food, she continued, was based on her own study of ancient plant life.

The belief that knowledge of ancient plant life provides understanding of the crossroads of farming and genetic research in the twenty-first century would be a worrying trait in a mayor. This inablity to recognise the limits of her own knowledge reveals that she cannot be trusted with office. The mayor has to be able to know when they have reached their own limits, and seek advice. They then have to be able to judge the quality of that advice.

At #5 on our list, Ms. Jones is the first candidate who we believe would actually be a bad mayor.

#6 Lawrence Webb, UKIP.

Mr. Webb and the UKIP released a one page manifesto. Seriously. It’s shorter than this article. It’s in point form. Anybody who votes UKIP in the London election needs to have their head examined.

Last: Carlos Cortiglia, BNP.

Mr. Cortiglia probably has a more developed plan than Mr. Webb does, but given that he represents the BNP, I will not do him the favour of giving it any page views. I am not searching for it, linking to it, or typing the url in browser.

How will we vote?

You might think this answer is above – we have Mr. Paddick first, through to Mr. Webb in 6th. All ranked.

But voting for the mayor is more complicated — we get a first choice, and a second choice. And the strategy begins.

Idealism VS Realism

Our first thought is for our second vote.

In an ideal world, our second vote would clearly be for Ms. Benita — she is our #2 choice, and if Mr. Paddick is not crowned the winner when the votes are tabulated, Ms. Benita is our next candidate.

But in the real world, everybody in London knows that the next mayor will either be Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone. Having a second vote – and no more – creates the temptation to jump Ms. Benita in the queue, and vote for my preferred candidate amongst the two likely candidates, giving the nod to Mr. Livingstone.

Here lies the quandary.

This evening, I’m leaning towards being realistic. London will be better under Livingstone than it would be with a second Johnson term; I have the power to affect that. On the other hand, it irks me that I have to rank my third choice second.

Wishful thinking VS Wishful thinking

Having chosen my second vote, it is time to pick who comes first.

My first, last and only thought had been that it would be Mr. Paddick. I like his platform best of the candidates, and am willing to look past his unfortunate reality television shenanigans and the party he represents. I see him as being best of the bunch.

And then I read the how and why of a friend’s vote, and I must admit it strikes a chord. If my real vote, the one that counts, is for Ken Livingstone, then what is my first preference?

For Mr. O’Malley, the answer is the hope that people see a large number of Green votes, and think they need more Green Party-like policies to appeal to voters like him. He doesn’t have to worry about Ms. Jones’s ability to do the job, because she will never have the opportunity to do it.

So I now have two options for my first vote.

On one hand, I can list Mr. Paddick. The wishful thinking here is that something crazy happens and Paddick manages to win. That’s very much wishful thinking, as he is currently polling in fourth place, with 5% of the vote.

On the other hand, I can list Ms. Jones, despite the fact that she is my #5 choice, and I believe her not to be competent. She’d be a horrible mayor. And I can engage in the wishful thinking that her estimated 6% of the vote will somehow influence more mainstream politics.

This evening, I stand by the principle that my #1 vote should be applied to the person I think will be best in the role, but if I wake up tomorrow, dreamy-eyed and believing that a vote for Green will plant an environmental seed in some dirty capitalist or unionist heart, that could change.

London has an election coming up on May 3rd, and your intrepid blogger has a vote.

As is his wont, he has decided to go through the candidates, and openly muse about why he should (or shouldn’t) vote for them. Given the number of candidates, it seems as though we’re going to do this in three parts; we will endeavour to cover all candidates prior to the election.

So, in the order presented in the pamphlet provided by London Elects, here are the candidates to be the Mayor of London:

Lawrence Webb, UKIP

I don’t know much about the UKIP, other than that “UKIP” stands for “United Kingdom Independence Party”, and that they’re a conservative party that would like the country to exit the EU. The Mayor of London has no say in such matters, of course, so — other than a feather in their cap, of course — there’s no obvious UKIP policy that fits with the power of the mayorality.

So what does their manifesto contain?

Immigration Policy

Amazingly, since it lies outside of the mayor’s power (although perhaps not surprisingly, given it’s the purpose of their party) the thrust of their point-form manifesto, is an anti-EU and anti-immigration policy. (Really. A one page, point form, manifesto. I’m embarrassed for them.)

Their anti-immigration stance has even evolved into some sort of generic anti-movement policy, separating “long term Londoners” from the rest.

This list includes things beyond the mayor’s power (changing immigration policy, altering EU policy to eliminate red tape), the illegal (giving preferential treatment to people from London on the job market), the weird (levy 25p on all overseas visitors), and the immoral (giving preference to Londoners over asylum seekers for housing).

Law and order?

Webb seems intent to undermine the police and justice system through his “Law and Order” proposals:

1. Zero tolerance on certain types of crime. Leaving aside that zero tolerance policies do not work and pervert the course of justice, the line “offend on Saturday, face court on Monday” strikes me as impossible.
2. Encourage citizens arrests.

The good idea

Every campaign needs a good idea, right? For Webb, it’s the time-limited multi-bus trip: as many bus trips as a person wants/needs within 70 minutes of the ticket’s purchase.

The caveat is that this appears to have simply been stolen from the Liberal Democrat platform (see below). So, um, the only thing I like about the UKIP platform is the bit they stole from the Lib Dems.

Why you should vote for Webb

You shouldn’t.

London is a global financial capital — immigration is its lifeblood. An anti-immigration mayor, even a powerless one, would do irreparable economic harm to the city and the country.

The immigration issue aside (if that’s possible with the UKIP), Webb’s ideas seem pretty awful. The one page manifesto is an embarrassment; any serious candidate who wants your vote should put some effort into their campaign.

Even if you find yourself agreeing with the UKIP and Mr. Webb, the poor showing on the manifesto shows that he is not serious about the role; he does not deserve a single vote.

Carlos Cortiglia, BNP

The BNP (British National Party) are a far right party of racists and bigots.

There is no reason to examine the Cortiglia’s platform.

Do not vote for this man.

Siobhan Benita, Independent

My dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties (see below) makes an independent candidate intriguing. An independent needs more vetting, however, as their unstated political views are not necessarily clear based on party alignment, and their track record may be absent.

Such is the case with Ms. Benita, who has an About Page that is worryingly absent of content.

Still, after reading the UKIP’s “manifesto”, Benita is a breath of fresh air. She has a separate manifesto for each of her policy areas, any of which put the UKIP manifesto to shame.

Ms. Benita appears to be prepared, and has some interesting ideas.

Why you should vote for Benita

Other candidates seem rather lackluster (see above and below), which is a poor reason, but a reason all the same. She also has well thought out positions that I happen to agree with:

Education appears to be her primary concern, and she wants to bring libraries under the mayorality. I am on board with these — although concerned that her primary agenda appears to deal with subjects that are outside the purview of the mayor.

Given the new rules for academies brought about at the national level, to have the mayor responsible for planning permissions for new schools, while the councils are responsible for education itself seems like a strange mismatch (of course, Conservatives probably see it as “competition”, and won’t change the rules here). Throw in the fact that the mayor is a visible force in the city, while most people do not know who represents them on the council, and it would create greater accountability for a primary concern in local elections.

Other fantastic ideas:

• Free transport for job seekers
• Having the tubes run later on weekends
• Better river transport services
• Donate government buildings to charities after working hours

Beyond this, we are also rather fond of her entire Housing Manifesto.

Why you should not vote for Benita

A lot of the mayor’s “powers” are not powers, but places where they wield influence. This is done – as far as I can tell – through will and personality. When I watch Benita talk (and that’s a video from her campaign website, not something random I chose in which she is uncompelling), I’m not convinced that she can convince people. When I read about her accomplishments as a senior bureaucrat, I find them to be suspiciously vague.

She has no track record, and there’s no reason to think that she’ll be able to push through anything on …

… education, which is the focus – “priority”, in her words – of her campaign, despite it being outside the remit of mayor.
… economic growth, which is one of the mayor’s responsibilities, but one in which she has no official powers.
… improve policing, where the mayor has many powers, but is not involved in operational decision making.

With her top priority being outside the scope of the job, an absent track record, and no opportunity to see her in action under pressure (as an independent, she is not invited to the debates), she seems to be a “high risk, high reward” candidate.

I like what she’s selling, but remain quite unconvinced that she can deliver any of it.

Brian Paddick, Liberal Democrat

At the moment, I am not a big fan of the Liberal Democrats. I was quite excited about them in the last General Election, and thought quite highly of the prospects of a coalition government that featured them. Unfortunately, they seem to have instead agreed to support the Conservative party – thereby losing their progressive voting base – in return for a referendum on AV that they lost, at least partially, by mismanaging the campaign.

It has not been impressive.

But local politics and national politics are quite different, and when it comes to the position of mayor the person matters even more. The mayor does not answer to the party whip. And Brian Paddick is a very interesting candidate.

His Lib Dem affiliation paints him as a progressive candidate, but he comes from a policing background which, to my mind, tends to produce more right wing types.

His number one focus, naturally, is the police. With his mix of the progressive and the practical, he makes a quite intriguing figure as the person in charge of the Met.

Why you should vote for Paddick

First and foremost, because of his position on policing. Too often those who make “improvements” to policing – who provide more money, more manpower, more tools – are hardline right wingers. A progressive with practical experience approaching such a role is a rare and wonderful thing.

There are other nice ideas in the manifesto — the one-hour bus fare supported by the UKIP also appears here, along with other ideas to make travel in London more affordable to those on a limited income. There are also some good longer-term environmental goals

Why you shouldn’t vote for Paddick

That Lib Dem association again. While the policing focus – along with the clearly well thought out practical ideas – is all Paddick, the manifesto is decidedly about the Liberal Democrats, and not Paddick himself.

How much does he care about these things? How committed to them is he? And – given my reservations about the party itself, these days, is there enough Paddick here to hold my nose and vote for his party?

Stay tuned …

There are still three candidates — including the two favourites — still to come. Keep an eye on the Big Bad Blog for more of our election preview.