Anna Soubry: Feminist Icon. Line-by-line.

Arggh!! Sometimes I think the Tories have an evil masterplan to disenfranchise women. Slashing benefits for carers and single parents, destroying public sector jobs, etc, etc. Then I realise their plan goes even further than that. They're actively trying to break down the credibility of women in the public eye by appointing the most stupid ones they can find to the highest offices they can spare.  Witness Anna Soubry. Weep.


"I've noticed that every public health minister has been a woman"

Great observation. Have you noticed anything else? Like your government auctioning off our healthcare service to the highest bidder? Mega corporations force-feeding junk food to children? An obesity crisis?

"and it's been seen as the soft, girly option."

I'm sure some people out there think jobs done by women are easy. That's probably because they (a) don't do those jobs and (b) are misogynist tossers. Don't let them influence your use of language here.

"It's bloody well not, it's one of the most important jobs."

Indeed it is, so you might want to think about doing it well.

"To be quite frank, when the PM said to me: 'I want you to do public health,' I thought: 'Oh boss, I respect you so much, but I'm the only woman here and I get public health – I hope there's no connection there.'"

You were the only woman at the meeting and you suspected the person who called the meeting might be behaving in a sexist way?  No shit sherlock. Amazed he didn't pat you on the bum and ask for two sugars.

"Maybe I can make people realise that this is not a soft bloody girly option, it is a big serious job."

Girly does not mean easy.

"I'm a huge fan of our prime minister … but I did sit there in the cabinet room and think: 'Boss, you do know what you've just done? You've given public health to the girl again"

Who is this "girl"? I want my government run by sensible adults though frankly I can think of some toddlers who could do better than this lot.

"except I'm not a girl, I'm a tough old bird.'"

I'm a tough old bird who loves to use sexist language to describe myself. What is wrong with "woman"? I never hear David Cameron describe himself as a "boy" or a "tough old cock".

"I came into politics to fight lefties …"

Were you drunk when you gave this speech? You came into politics to "fight lefties"? Not to make people's lives better or to serve the nation...? No, fighting them goddarn rootin tootin leftie scum. And which ones? Us lefties are constantly falling out over stuff, when we're not too busy growing organic veg and being gay.

"That's where political fighting goes. The Tory party must learn from its own history that when we fight each other, you can guarantee to lose."

And also win. Confucianism 1.0.

If you want to do something useful Anna - how about signing up to the Leave Our Kids Alone campaign? I think it's brilliant. And it would definitely be a positive for public health.

Join me for New Year's Eve!

Hello readers!  Just to let you know - or if you know anyone who lives in or near London please pass this on - that I'm going to be performing at a brilliant fun New Year's Eve show/party.  It's called The Ultimate Intimate Comedy and Sing-Along New Year's Eve Party and it also features some of my favourite comics: Greek whirlwind Katerina Vrana, Chris Coltrane (host of lefty show Lolitics) and cabaret favourite Luke Meredith.  Then after we've done our respective things, including silly games and prizes Luke is going to lead us in a lovely sing-along all the way up to midnight and then the bar stays open til 3am.  The best part is it's a really small intimate venue so EVERYONE will get to be part of the games and fun and it's only £20 a head including nibbles.  Tickets onsale here and strictly limited so book soon!

Bigotry double-speak alert

Eww, this is creepy.  The Guardian has published a piece by Timothy Radcliffe sinisterly trying to say, without giving any real reasons, that religious opposition to gay marriage is not homophobia.  It's a cavalcade of nonsense.  Here's why, line-by-line:


"It is heartening to see the wave of support for gay marriages."

Yeah, shame the church is still a hotbed of bigotry.

"It shows a society that aspires to an open tolerance of all sorts of people, a desire for us to live together in mutual acceptance." 

Tolerance and acceptance?  I want to live in a society that does not tolerate or accept bigotry of any kind. Including that kind that comes, as it so often does, from organised religion.

"It seems obviously fair and right that if straight people can get married, why not gay people?"

Yes it does. Because it is.  The article should end here.

"But we must resist the easy seduction of the obvious."

We must also not forget Occam's razor. If it looks like bigotry and it smells like bigotry... it's probably bigotry.

"It once seemed obvious that the sun revolved around the Earth..."

Not wholly true, but it was science that showed the earth revolves the sun, not religion.

"...and that women were inferior to men."

This is still "obvious" to millions of people around the world, and almost always because religion teaches that it's true and that it should be perpetuated by denying women their basic rights.

"Society only evolves when we have the mental liberty to challenge what seems to be common sense."

Yes we should challenge things that seem to be common sense, but we shouldn't reject them outright unless we find compelling evidence. Doh.

"Many Christians oppose gay marriage not because we are homophobic..."

No - thinking gay people should have less rights than straight people IS homophobic.

"...or reject the equal dignity of gay people..."

If people have equal dignity, they probably ought to have equal rights.

"...but because "gay marriage" ultimately..."

Putting it in quotation marks is stupid and offensive. If gay people get married, that is, or would be, gay marriage.

"...we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world."

No it doesn't, unless you plan to make gay marriage compulsory. It gives them the option of having what others have and also all the other options straight people have, live living together, dating, being single, having group sex, whatever. And marriage wouldn't be part of the "straight world" if we made it available to all.  And there's no such thing as the "straight world", we live in the "real world".

"Richard Sennett of the LSE argues in Together, the Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Co-operation, that western society fears difference."

All human beings instinctively fear difference because we don't fully understand people who aren't like us.  This is the root of intolerance, we need to overcome it. One of the main barriers to that is organised religion.  Organised religion almost always teaches that anyone who doesn't live a certain way and believe a certain pile of nonsense is going to be punished for it, often violently and torturously.

"Because of growing inequality and a fluid society in which people move rapidly from one job and place to another (if they can get a job at all), we do not learn the art of living with people who are unlike us."

Actually in the West we live in a more mixed culture than at any time in history.

"We are highly tribalised."

No we used to be tribalised. When we lived in tribes. That's where the word comes from. Yes there are remnants of tribal living around still but in general we no longer live in tribes.

"He asserts that "tribalism couples solidarity with others like yourself to aggression against those who are different"."

Not always true in some ways.  Historically tribes would only have been "like-minded" because they were blood-related and because infants were communally raised by elder tribe members who passed on values.  It's likely many people in tribes disagreed with tribe leaders or felt they were different to other members. But often they may have kept quiet because falling out with the rest of the tribe meant great personal risk. It's unlikely they knew how individuals in other tribes felt about issues, and in some cases tribes co-operated and in others they fought or competed.

"The internet enables us to bond with like-minded people."

And yet here I am reading your twaddle Tim! But good - if I can reach out to others who also hate bigotry, I'd like to do that.

"If we disagree, we can disengage in a second."

Which is much better than having a war isn't it?  Would it be better to force people to live full time with people they don't actually get on with?  Also I've never "disengaged" with someone online because of their sexual orientation.  Nor would I.

"Zygmunt Bauman argues that the mobility of modern society encourages "the impulse to withdraw from risk-ridden complexity into the shelter of uniformity"."

Well we certainly can use the internet to find others whose opinions we agree with if we want.  And that's a brilliant thing for people who feel different to those around them and may be being bullied or having their needs and feelings ignored. This would include gay and trans people as well as, for example, those trapped in religious communities who do not believe supernatural nonsense.

"Tolerance means, literally, to engage with other people who are different."

Engage with them by fighting to deny them the same rights as you?

"It implies an attention to the particularity of the other person, a savouring of how he or she is unlike me, in their faith, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation."

Remind me to go round savouring how others are different to me in their ethnicity.  Mmmm, a brown person... How the hell does this work? Or savouring their different sexual orientation.  Mmmm, boy-on-boy action, tasty. Gay men and women don't want to be savoured by creepy old religious dudes, they want to be treated equally by everyone and by the law.  And when it comes to your homophobic faith, excuse me if savouring it doesn't leave rather a bitter taste.

"A society that flees difference and pretends we are all just the same may have outlawed intolerance in one form, and yet instituted it in other ways."

But we are all different - some people want to marry in their 20s, others in their 80s. Some want to marry more than once, some never at all. And some people want to marry someone the same sex as them. We're not pretending everyone is the same, we're insisting everyone should have the same rights. To describe legalising gay marriage as "instituting intolerance" is real double-speak.

"It says, "we shall tolerate you as long as you pretend to be just like us"."

But gay people don't need to pretend to be "just like us". They are "just like us". In fact they are "some of us". Doh!

"We put up with various religious faiths as long as they are confined to the private sphere, or reduced to decorative role."

Actually we go to enormous lengths to encourage religion. If churches paid tax none of the recent welfare cuts would be necessary at all. And we allow religion into our schools and public services, even into taxpayer-funded roles in our hospitals and armed forces. It's disgusting and it needs to stop now, especially since the church persists in pushing it's homophonic agenda in all of these places.

"At Christmas, a tree, and a menorah for Hanukkah."

The tree is pagan by the way and has everything to do with culture and toss all to do with religion, as do the presents under it.

"Religious conviction, if it impinges on the public sphere, is viewed with a mixture of fear and derision."

Well it does impinge on the public sphere. Twenty-six unelected all-male Church of England bishops sit in the House of Lords and influence the laws that affect the rest of us. And yes of course it meets fear and derision because we want our laws to be based on fairness and human rights, not outdated bigoted supernatural nonsense.

"And so it is both true that modern Britain is a model of multiculturalism, and also that we drift around in a fog of mutual ignorance."

While cheese IS NOT chalk, we also note that cheese IS chalk.  We're not a model of multiculturalism, we get it right sometimes, and we're not drifting around in a fog of ignorance, we get it wrong sometimes.  Like for example right now some bigot is writing in The Guardian about how we shouldn't allow gay marriage. And as for "mutual ignorance", yes there are probably a small number of straight people in the UK who are to some extent ignorant about the gay community but I fail to see how there are gay people who are ignorant about straight people. That is the privilege of being the vast majority of the population.

"Cardinal Basil Hume taught that God is present in every love, including the mutual love of gay people."

Well I thought I might be drifting around in a fog of ignorance about the gay community I'd definitely ask Cardinal Basil Hume for his opinion.  That's definitely a better idea than asking someone who actually is gay. And thanks Basil, I'll bear that in mind while I fuck other atheists.

"This is to be respected and cherished and protected, as it is by civil unions."

Respected so much that gay people aren't allowed to use the same words or legal documentation as straight people, nor hold their ceremonies in the same buildings.  How is that "respect"? And why should anyone "cherish" having less rights?

"But to open up marriage to gay people, however admirable the intention, is ultimately to deny "the dignity of difference" in the phrase of the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sachs."

Eww, don't quote Jonathan Sachs at me. I met him once. Horrible bigoted man. (And I think I may have said that!) And "the dignity of difference", really?  The dignity of unequal rights?  The dignity of "not quite the same"? The dignity of "don't use our special word for it"? With all due dignity - fuck off.

"It is not discriminatory..."

Yes it is. Denying equal rights is discrimination.

"...merely a recognition that marriage is an institution that is founded on a union that embraces sexual difference."

Marriage is an institution founded on male control over women.  Historically men could marry several women and have concubines, etc too.  Women had little or no say in the matter. Love was not really a factor in a lot of historical cases, it was much closer to slavery.  The meaning of marriage has constantly evolved for the better. And anyway Christmas trees are FOUNDED on pagan worship, so why aren't you campaigning to bring that back?

"It is not a denial of the equality of the love between two gay people, for all love is of infinite value."

If love is of infinite value then it must be worth more than the church's petty outdated ideas, no?

"A society that fears difference and does not engage with it will ultimately fall into intolerance."

So if we allow gay marriage, this will lead to intolerance. So being tolerant will lead to intolerance. Have you read 1984 Tim?

"Real conversation with people who are different is frightening: it changes how you view your own identity."

Yeah the last time I spoke to a gay person I totally shit myself. Not.

"In his book on Dostoevsky, Rowan Williams quotes Mikhail Bakhtin: "Dialogue ... is not a means for revealing, for bringing to the surface the readymade character of a person; no, in dialogue a person not only shows himself outwardly, but he becomes for the first time that which he is – and we repeat, not only for others but for himself as well.""

Note how directly after he calls for conversation between people who are different he then quotes another straight white bloke's book about yet another straight white bloke. Not one woman, non-white person, gay or lesbian, transperson, etc has been quoted or even mentioned in this whole article.  And you think the rest of us are scared of difference?!!  I guess asking a gay person's opinion would be too frightening huh?  But hey, I'd be scared of gay people too if I was a bigot.

"An easygoing tolerance, rubbing along beside each other without much curiosity, is not enough."

Tolerance is a bloody good start. And equality in terms of marriage is a step on the road to equality. And if your level of curiosity about the gay community is so strong that you sought out the opinions of three straight white men: a Rabbi, a Cardinal and a former Archbishop? I'd hate to see how you do research on dogs, probably by asking cats, or newts. And again you seem to be implying that gay people for the most part just muddle along without interacting with straight people. But they don't, they can't, because straight people are bloody everywhere and run everything.

"We need to recover a confidence in intelligent engagement with those who are unlike us, a profound mutual attention..."

So go on. Ask a gay person if they want to be "equal but different", if they think marriage is "founded on sexual difference", if they want less rights than you.  Hint: they don't!

"...otherwise we shall crush a life-giving pluralism." 

Yes "pluralism", what a lovely word for "inequality". Remember the good old days when South Africa had "pluralism" for black people? No nor do I because apartheid was just discrimination!

"It will not only be gay people who will suffer."

But lets be honest, when gay people have less rights, it is MOSTLY gay people who suffer.

"We shall all be the poorer."

This whole article doesn't suggest one single way in which anyone shall be "the poorer" for living in a society that recognises gay marriage.  The point seems to be that we should reject gay marriage because it might discourage some people from engaging with those who are different to them? On the contrary it will highlight how similar we all are, in that we are all human beings.  Gay marriage will actually lead to more engagement, especially between gay people who love each other! Plus it will make it really obvious which churches (Unitarians, Quakers, etc) are open minded and enthusiastic about being a part of gay people's lives and which ones (CofE, Catholic) are going to continue to support bigotry.

Red tape and red herrings

Wish I had time to write about this at more length.  Maybe later.  Still... This is totally chilling.  David Cameron says he wants to "cut red tape". What he's actually doing is removing almost all of the checks and balances that exist to ensure proposed legislation works properly and doesn't disadvantage particular groups. The loss of equalities assessments means they can now just bring in new policies without bothering to check if they will have a negative impact on certain groups. And getting rid of the 12 weeks of consultation on new policies is frightening.  So they can just steamroller new policy through without anyone who might be affected having a chance to voice their concerns.  It rather begs the question - why would politicians WANT this?  If I was developing new policy I'd want a period of time to listen to ideas and views on it and have the chance to modify it to reflect what is best for everyone.  I'd also want to have a look at the impact of it on disadvantaged groups. Can only think you'd have to be REALLY corrupt to not even want to check that.

Religion, sexuality, the Daily Mail and me

The Daily Fail is celebrating the jubilee by giving me an excuse to air a little rage.  Even for them this is funny.  It's called "'Promiscuity, divorce and separation are at epidemic proportions,’ warns bishop in Jubilee address".  So here's a little line-by-line for y'all:


"Promiscuity, separation and divorce are at 'epidemic' proportions, a senior Church of England bishop has warned as he called for Britain to use the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as an opportunity to reflect and reassess values."

Yeah people woke up and smelt the secular coffee! Turns out there is no God, and therefore no reason to regard sex for pleasure as a bad thing, nor to persist with relationships after it has become apparent they're not working.

"The Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, writing in a Bible Society pamphlet about the origins of the word jubilee, said Britain was now an 'enormously different' society compared to 1952 - the year of the Queen’s accession to the throne - and in 'so many ways' a better place to live."

Yeah a much better place, for example all the jobs which used to be men-only are now open to women too, except the marine commandos and, what's that other one, oh yeah - being a fucking bishop like he is.

"But he said inequality had grown and material progress had been at the expense of communal life with relationships within families, communities and society 'more strained, more fragile' and more broken than people cared to recognise."

Monetary inequality may well have grown but equality for gay and lesbian people is now a legal standard across our society except, oh what's that one thing, oh marriage. And who is is who keeps fighting against gay and lesbian marriage?  Oh yeah - the homophobic churches. Bastards.

"'Literally millions of children grow up without knowing a stable, loving, secure family life - and that is not to count the hundreds of thousands more who don’t even make it out of the womb each year,' he said."

Yes your evil God does cause a lot of miscarriages doesn't he?  Perhaps it's time you stopped praying to him and started paying to have folic acid capsules and other scientifically-proven ways of reducing miscarriages provided to pregnant women?

"'Promiscuity, separation and divorce have reached epidemic proportions in our society.
'Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be surprised that depression and the prescription of anti-depressants has reached a similarly epidemic level.'"

Yeah we're definitely not as happy a society as we were when we made small children climb chimneys to clean them and half the population had plague.  Or maybe we're a bit more open about mental health problems now that people who admit to them don't get burnt as witches quite so much by, oh who is it, your stupid fucking church!


"In his pamphlet, Dr Chartres said the Diamond Jubilee was not only a time to reflect on the Queen’s 'extraordinary' reign but also a chance to 'rebalance the scales' in society and focus on how we can 'reset' the situation."


Reset the situation?  Do you mean "roll back decades of progress" or do you mean "go back to the good old days when people actually believed in God and your job wasn't a pointless waste of time"?

"Dr Chartres said the Biblical meaning of the word jubilee was a reminder of the need to take the 'long view' and to take into account the environment for future generations. It should also mean an end to the 'crippling debt economy' and a move to living within our means, he added."

Seriously?  The bible is telling us to reduce our national debt?  Which verse is that?  I wonder what his view is on dropping the top rate of tax?  Is our holy mythical overlord a believer in the long discredited Laffer curve?

"Dr Chartres also called for action to tackle 'depressingly high' youth unemployment in Britain.
'The extent of youth unemployment is appalling. The waste of human talent is unsustainable morally and economically,' he said."

Yes I hate to see human beings whose time and effort is wasted in unproductive activity that contributes nothing to society.  I'm going to pray about that.


"We should not simply look to government for a solution but look to our communities for role models and mentors to encourage, challenge and enthuse those who are in danger of losing hope.'"

Yeah we need role models.  How about a guy who deliberately chooses to believe irrational unscientific lies and is rewarded for this with access to our political leadership?  That doesn't really fill me with hope.

"Dr Chartres praised the 'quiet dignity' of the Queen and the way she and her family had reached out to include newly established British communities."

Well yes the Queen has expressed her "quiet dignity" by not biting the hand that feeds her and nodding along with what "her" government does even when it's leaving people in crippling poverty.

"'We have changed profoundly as a country in the 60 years of the Queen’s reign. We have bade farewell to Empire abroad and moved into a new multicultural reality at home,' he said."

Also we invented the vajazzle.  I'm getting the crown jewels vajazzled onto my crown jewels.  What is the point here?


"'The demise of the old world and the arrival of the new has involved sometimes painful adjustments."

Sure thing.  Also quite a lot of really nice holidays though.

"'The quiet dignity of the Queen and the way in which she and her family have reached out to include newly established British communities has provided a focus for continuing but expanding national self-respect and so has assisted the peaceful transformation of our national identity.'"

No the identity of the nation has changed all on it's own, thanks to modern British people.  The Queen has never been at the vanguard of that, she's always been running along behind, trying to keep up with her overtly racist husband.

He added: 'Her Majesty enjoys widespread and profound popularity across the British people, and beyond.

Considering the massive PR machine she is promoted by, she's remarkably unpopular.

"'Not only is she quite simply the most famous public figure on earth but she is also the most respected.'"

Really? More respected than Nelson Mandela? The woman who was queen of South Africa as apartheid was brought in?  How ridiculous.

The truth is while Mandela spoke out about injustice and was prepared to suffer the gruelling consequences, the queen's "quiet dignity" is exactly what has allowed her to keep living a life of outlandish luxury and continues to allow pointless people like this idiot to leap on the bandwagon and use her to promote their own political agenda.  Like dishing out celestial advice on economic policy and criticising people who have and enjoy the healthy and joyous experience that is sex for pleasure!

BNP irony overload

You may have noticed that BNP's candidate for mayor of London is, erm, how do I put this...? Well, the guy, he's, erm, he's foreign. Seriously, born in Uruguay to Spanish and Italian parents. Of course I think foreigners should be allowed to naturalise in this country and should be allowed to run for office. It's just the BNP who don't. He's their former head of policy.

He and I have a little history. He doesn't like me very much after I completely trashed him in a debate on a Russian TV station.

And so he wrote a piece on his blog about me called "Kate Smurthwaite and the Third Reich", in which he accuses me of basically being a Nazi. Argh! The irony! I can't take any more! His "point" (in the loosest sense) is that I support the work of Marie Stopes who a very long time ago were involved with eugenics. Of course I don't actually support eugenics (surprise Melanie Phillips and interesting how you and the BNP can only come up with the same transparent arguments eh?). I don't make the assumption that anyone who eats Kellogg's cereal is an anti-masturbation campaigner, though again there is a historic link. A strong one actually.

There is however a serious point here. We are widely aware of the BNP's very very unpleasant attitude towards anyone who isn't white-British. We can forget sometimes that they're also horribly horribly sexist. And yes they have female members and candidates but as we've seen they also have members and candidates who aren't white-British. One of their stated policies last time I looked (their website is down today, sorry fascism fans - try the Conservatives site instead) is that any single mother who wears a short skirt should have her children taken away.

Footnote: When I agreed to do the interview Russia Today did NOT tell me I would be up against a BNP guy. They said it would be a religious anti-choice person. I don't particularly have a strong view on when one should and shouldn't "no platform" an organisation like the BNP, I was live on air when I found out who I was debating with and made the snap decision to carry on. Love to hear views on whether that was the right choice or what you-all would advise if it happened again another time...?

Conscience Choice

Interesting blog post from Labour MP Kerry McCarthy about parliamentary votes that are generally unwhipped on the grounds that they constitute "votes of consciousness". I have added a comment which may make it through moderation but just in case here are my thoughts:

If MPs deferred to the wishes of their voters on abortion - after all they are supposed to represent the views of their constitutents - all MPs would vote pro-choice. Personally I see abortion as a human rights matter (ditto gay rights, trans rights, etc) so I think it should be whipped by any party that considers themselves compassionate and just. One in 8 pregnancies worldwide ends in illegal abortion, at a cost of thousands of women’s lives, so it's a big human rights issue too.

I also really don’t understand the idea that anti-choicers are voting based on their religion. No-one I have ever met believes that if I arrive at the pearly gates and say “I don’t believe in God, but I didn’t have an abortion because it was illegal”, they are going to let me in.

Fawcett March and some radio clips

Yesterday the Fawcett Society organised a rally to protest the disproportionate way in which women are being affected by the cuts. I was asked to speak afterwards at the rally about the threat to reproductive and abortion rights. I am mentioned in the Morning Star newspaper.

I was also on BBC radio 5 Live Weekend Breakfast show yesterday talking about internet abuse. You can "listen again" here starting at 2h43m in to the show. Since then I've been discussing it a bit on Twitter with Dr Evan Harris and others. The question of what can be done about it is a tricky one. Certainly I get quite a lot of messages that are definitely the wrong side of the law - especially if they contain specific threats. But I don't really have time to launch a police case every time this happens. When I have contacted the police - they've been rubbish and done nothing. And for the general hate messages there is the issue that people are entitled to free speech but it also seems unfair that I, and hundreds and thousands of other women with an online presence (plus, I must add ethnic minority, gay, trans, etc bloggers who I'm sure get plenty of crap too) have to wade through this stuff in our inboxes every morning. We know young people have been driven to suicide by Internet bullying. My solution as ever is to tackle the hate culture, not the expression of it. But seems like not much progress is being made on that front either!

And this morning - yes that was me on BBC Radio Ulster debating whether single women should be allowed IVF on the NHS. Can't believe we're still having this debate really. Why would a health service offer "moral" or relationship advice. Loads of single women are great mothers and if they're coming for IVF it's not like they haven't given the matter serious consideration... And who wants to turn down the recently widowed, or a woman who's just escaped domestic violence? We have to trust women to decide what's best for them.

Anyway the most fun bit was that right towards the end the woman I was debating with opined that single women shouldn't be allowed to have IVF kids because it was against the bible's model of a family. Well it was left to me to point out that not everyone in the UK shares her religious perspective and blah blah blah. Anyway just as the interview was ending I casually mentioned that there is no God. Good morning Northern Ireland and you're welcome!! Sorry it's not available on iPlayer.

Footnote: thanks Paul - I stand corrected (and pleased) - you can listen to the Radio Ulster debate show here. My bit starts from 34m in and skip forward to 44m is you just want to hear my big finish!

Jobs for Girls

Well the Cru-blog has certainly been written of my Mac and my iPhone for a long time. But I don't have anything particular to add to the discussion of Steve Jobs' death. It's sad when someone dies, of course, whatever their role in life. There isn't really anything else to say.

Naturally enough though, the media is in need of something to pad out their articles with and the obvious choice is tributes from well known people in relevant sectors. The Daily Mail for example includes comments from 22 people in the worlds of IT, politics and the media. All 22 of those people are male. That's pretty sad. Later on they list a couple of twitter comments from Kylie Minogue and Tyra Banks but it's sad to think that women are so hugely under-represented in these areas in the 21st century.

Dorries, Lies, etc

I had a piece published in the Huffington Post yesterday about abortion access and Nadine Dorries. Seems like since then there is some good news. But we're not in the clear yet. Please if you haven't written to your MP about this - do so today! It's a two-click process here and you can join Abortion Rights while you're there and support our ongoing work trying to stop women's rights being eroded.

Escaping the Asylum

Some of the awesome women who I teach English to with WAST (Women Asylum Seekers Together, a part of Women for Refugee Women) have a photography exhibition, which I've seen - it's incredibly powerful and moving. You can read about it and how to see it in The Observer here.

Pro-choice Pod

I was interviewed for a podcast at the pro-choice demo a couple of weeks ago. You can listen in here.

Cameron's brain-dead perspective

According to a joyfully-written piece in the Daily Mail David Cameron is taking steps to reduce benefits to families with large numbers of children. But he doesn't seem to have twigged that as he punishes those irresponsible parents who have dared to reproduce without thoughtfully going to Eton first, he seems to forget that he's also punishing all eight of their children - eight children who have done nothing wrong and now can't afford to eat. How is it fair to punish those children for their parents being out of a job while Cameron does nothing to improve their economic prospects. Makes me so angry!

In all of his expensive education - did he never read Voltaire's Candide: "Dieu a puni ce fripon, le diable a noyé les autres.". Or indeed "Economics for Dummies"!.

Dear Cru - How Should I Vote on AV?

A fan* writes: Does anyone else (like me) just not get how AV is supposed to be better than FPTP??? I have had it explained about the 50% of the votes bit, but how does ending up with someone who may have been many peoples 2nd or 3rd choice getting elected, become better? also it's hard enough with todays lot to even find a credible 1st choice! how the hell are we supposed to find another two???

OK listen carefully. The problem with politics is (I agree) that there are never any good candidates you really want to vote for. Why not? Well here's the trouble: imagine you have brilliant ideas and want to be a politician. You have two choices right? You could spend 20 years sucking up to one of the major parties even though you disagree with most of their policies and think their leaders are a bunch of corrupt dickheads. OR you could run as an independent or part of a smaller party (maybe your own, new, party) with a list of policies you actually want.

But here's the problem. Option one won't get your brilliant ideas into politics. It will just waste your life working for stuff you don't believe in.

But option two is worse. If you stand for election under the current system (FPTP or first past the post) you will simply split the vote for the party who is nearest to you. So lets say you're against student top-up fees. People now have to choose between you (no top-up fees), a "reduce the top-up fees" candidate, a "keep the fees the same" candidate" and an "increase the fees" candidate. So every vote you get is one less person voting "reduce the fees" or "keep the fees the same" and good news for the "increase the fees" candidate. In fact running as a candidate yourself significantly increases the likelihood that the ultimate winner will be someone who you completely disagree with.

However with AV your supporters can vote for you #1 and maybe that's enough to win and they can put "reduce the fees" #2, and "keep the fees the same" at #3. What they're saying is "if I can't have exactly what I want, I'd like the nearest thing available". Which should surely go without saying.

And importantly it means that new and independent candidates are encouraged to stand. Bringing more ideas into the system and giving us all more choice and more likelihood of finding a candidate we do believe in! And you can vote for them without "wasting" your vote. So you don't have to resort to "tactical voting" to keep hated parties out! You can actually vote for who you want to win and put your tactical choices as #2, #3,...

It's loads better than the current system. You should support it.

*not necessarily a fan of mine.

Aaarrrrgh!!!!

So the BBC today has 99.9% of it's coverage focussed on the Papal Visit - what did his Holiness wear? What is the significant of St Ninian's feast?

I wonder what the SECOND most important story on the BBC website today might be.

"Trident cash timetable could change - minister". Oh ok, so it's just about a rescheduling of defence budget spending... Lets just double-check and read the first line:

"Britain remains committed to replacing its nuclear weapons but the timetable for financing the scheme could change as a result of a value for money review, Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey has admitted."

But of course that's only the Armed Forces Minister. It's not as if David Cameron has made a big statement in support of Trident. Oh hang on - lets check paragraph 13. Really.

Am I the only one who thinks the bit about the Armed Forces Minister and payment schedules changing is not the key message here? The Prime Minister has announced we are going to spend billions of pounds on a totally unnecessary nuclear weapons system that will reduce global security and that very few people in the UK want.

Talk about hiding the real news.

May Gay May Gay!

So Home Secretary Theresa May has changed her view on gay adoption. Good. Check out though her "reasons". She claims this is because she thinks a child is better off with a family than in an institution. But that wouldn't explain why she was previously in favour of straight couples and single people adopting. I mean what were her previous choices: Clearly (1) Straight and single adoption (2) institution (3) gay adoption. So now her choices are (1) Straight or single adoption (2) gay adoption (3) institution. Still hasn't actually suggested that gay adoption may be AS VALID AS straight and single adoption. And what a weak reason to support gay adoption - because it's better than having children in an institution*? Where is the mention of how there's nothing wrong with being gay. More to the point where exactly is the apology for her previous votes and views?

*There's another issue here with Theresa May's choice of words because while many children in residential homes may be better off with appropriate families, there are also children who benefit from the culture and atmosphere of a residential home. So to suggest that children are never best off in an "institution" is misleading and actually an insult to kids who benefit from quality residential home care. What is best for each child is for that child's needs to be catered to carefully and fully.

My Vote - As Always - Is For Diane

Seriously, first bit of good news in a long time. Diane Abbott is absolutely my first choice (of anyone really, not just the available candidates) to lead the Labour Party. And she's my MP (minor girl-crush...) and I've met her several times and written to her hundreds of times and she's awesome.

Chilling News

When John Worboys was arrested for raping a passenger in his black cab his name was printed in the papers and dozens of other victims came forward. Without them a conviction might never have been secured, and women who had been drugged by Worboys and awoken confused and worried might never have found out the truth about what had happened to them. The full Lib-Con (Con-Dem, etc) coalition document has in it a promise to provide anonymity for defendants in rape cases.

The evidence suggests that false rape claims represent around 2-8% of cases (much lower than the false claim level for crimes relating to car insurance claims). And the notion that guys who are not convicted of rape are stigmatised is simply not true (consider the dozens of acquitted footballers still pursuing grossly overpaid professional careers) and when they are it's usually because the evidence against them was so overwhelming (like the "I might have raped her in my sleep" guy).

The law giving rape victims anonymity is there to encourage women to come forward despite the stigma felt by rape victims in many cases. This change will cut the rape conviction rate to even lower than it's current appalling level and leave women at even greater risk.

People Of Britain: Stop Believing Crap!

On election day I was on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. They laid on a car for me and as I had a busy day I asked the driver to drop me at the polling station rather than at my house. We started chatting and I asked if she was planning to vote. She said as an immigrant single mother she thought it was in her best interests to vote Conservative. Well it's just as well I wasn't the one driving because we would have ended up in a tree.

Once I'd cleaned the tea off the leather upholstered back of the passenger seat I started to explain. The conservatives would cut public services, close one in five SureStart centres, cut money for schools, eliminate child trust funds, increase student top-up fees and make it harder to claim basic benefits. Worse, from her point of view, they'd cut funding to the BBC, most likely closing more or less all of their operations in London and leaving her out of a job.

She explained that she'd read in the paper that of she didn't vote Conservative loads of new immigrants would arrive and threaten to take her job.  When I told her that Britain has more emigrants leaving than immigrants arriving she didn't believe me.

I was horrified at how the lies and distortions pedalled by the Murdock press are actually affecting voters, causing them to unwittingly vote not only against their own interests but against what they believe and hold dear.

When I finally crawled into bed at 9am the following morning I was relieved. A hung parliament. Enough of us had known or understood what Cameron and his cronies truly stood for to ensure he didn't have a majority. I slept soundly.

When I woke up, I assumed, Brown and Clegg would have teamed up with a coalition of those who believe in social justice, human rights and putting people ahead of corporate profits.  Instead Clegg was talking to Cameron.

There were, as I understood it, two groups of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats. The Cleggmania crowd who wanted electoral reform, no income tax on the first £10,000 of your earnings and the scrapping of the Trident project and the anyone-but-Cameron crowd who were voting tactically in constituencies where the Lib Dem respresented the most viable alternative to the Conservatie candidate.  Neither of these groups will get what they want in a Tory-LibDem coalition. So why are we even talking about it?

Again it's because of lies in the Murdoch press. Of course it is. Did we really think team Murdoch would give up that easily?

Firstly they tell us "60% of public want Brown to resign" which may be true. But if the remaining 40% are happy to have Brown as PM then he's streets ahead of Cameron who didn't manage to get 40% of the public to vote for his party.  The reality is that of the 60% who want Brown to resign in fact 30% want him to resign as PM so that Cameron can take over (and that 30% do so mostly because they've believed the press lies in the election build-up), and the other 30% want him to resign from the Labour Party leadership so that Milliband, Straw, Harman or indeed Nick Clegg can take over leading a left-wing coalition.

And secondly we are told that "the markets" need a quick resolution to the hung parliament situation. Yes quick, flush away the last shreds of democracy, ignore the will of the people, do whatever is necessary to help the markets...!  The markets, we are told, hate uncertainty. This despite the fact that bankers for years have made their money trading and gambling on exactly that uncertainty.  In a former life a tall tanned handsome Frenchman took me round the LIFFE futures trading floor. "Buy the rumour", he advised in an accent like a Rolex sliding down a thick wrist, "sell the fact".  When the announcement is made there's no more profit to be made on the story.  The markets can cope for a little bit without us.

The difference is though that before the election to save us from a future the vast majority of us have never wanted we needed at least two thirds of the country to see through and reject the Murdoch lies. Now we need only one man. So please Mr Clegg - do the right thing.

Quelle Surprise!

All the parties are rubbish on equality for women but the Tories are extra extra rubbish.