The Conference has just voted overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage.

Summerskill's remarks yesterday to Stonewall on gay marriage were most bizarre actually - how exactly would full equality cost £5 billion? :mellow: If anything it'd be more likely to stimulate the economy as more gays get properly married and splash out!

How does allowing more people to get married cost us £5bn? :huh:

I suppose there would be some administration costs in converting all civil partnerships registered so far into marriages, but I can't imagine it would be anything close to £5bn, and in any case that's not a good enough reason not to do it.

I suppose there would be some administration costs in converting all civil partnerships registered so far into marriages, but I can't imagine it would be anything close to £5bn, and in any case that's not a good enough reason not to do it.

That's not part of the proposal. Civil partners would have to decide whether to get married or stay in a CP. I'm baffled by Stonewall's remarks. I've been a member since they started and they've done a great job but this is just bizarre.

That's not part of the proposal. Civil partners would have to decide whether to get married or stay in a CP. I'm baffled by Stonewall's remarks. I've been a member since they started and they've done a great job but this is just bizarre.

 

I think in California civil partnerships were automatically converted into marriages when the latter was first legalised in 08... I might be wrong though.

I have no objection to gay marriage in principle but if indeed it is going to initially cost billions it should not be a high priority of this administration.

 

 

I have no objection to gay marriage in principle but if indeed it is going to initially cost billions it should not be a high priority of this administration.

Can you do better than Stonewall and explain how it would cost billions? I am genuinely baffled.

 

Until listening to the debate I would not have considered this to be a high priority. However, the main reason in favour of it is that marriages would have to be recognised throughout the EU. Civil partnerships are only recognised in some EU countries.

I suppose there would be some administration costs in converting all civil partnerships registered so far into marriages, but I can't imagine it would be anything close to £5bn, and in any case that's not a good enough reason not to do it.

Surely that wouldn't cost very much at all, it'd take one person to alter a few entries in the database and issue some new bits of paper. It should cost far far far less than £100m never mind this absurd £5bn figure they have come up with.

 

I would hope that existing Civil Partnerships should be given the option to convert to a marriage for free within a time period, then after that period has elapsed it would be assumed that the people who haven't transferred want to stay civil partners.

Stonewall are now back-trachking - sort of. They have published a statement on their website denying that Ben Summerskill mentioned a figure of £5bn but then quoting that figure as fact a couple paragraphs later.

 

The statement...

 

The story published by PinkNews today is, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at last night’s fringe meeting in Liverpool.

 

We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without double-checking a single fact and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed.

 

Ben made quite clear at the meeting that Stonewall is engaged in a process of listening and consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership.

 

While some lesbian, gay and bisexual people fully support changing civil partnership into marriage, there are others – including particularly some women – who do not want something that is either the same as or synonymous with marriage. This is a sensitive area of policy development and not one which is assisted by inflammatory media coverage.

 

The Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, with whom we have discussed this issue privately, acknowledged in response to Ben’s remarks last night that as Stonewall is a supporter-based organisation it could not be expected to issue a response to such an issue until it had built the sort of consensus Ben had outlined.

 

Ben did not say for one moment that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated today because it would cost £5bn.

 

Ben pointed out, factually, that there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested that ministers should publish the Treasury Impact Assessment that will have been carried out.

 

This is a policy on which Stonewall expressed and expresses no view (campaigning to end heterosexual disadvantage is not one of its charitable objectives, and Ben said that) however, with an estimated cost of £5bn over 10 years, people have understandably raised the question of whether it is likely in the current economic environment that such a policy would be implemented in the lifetime of this parliament.

 

Stonewall is determined, as Ben made crystal clear at the meeting, to build – as it has always strived to do on any issue - a policy and campaigning position on the future of civil partnership that has the support of the widest possible number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Britain.

 

For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute.

 

They really do seem to be all over the place on this issue.

Someone really needs to ask Clegg straight out when exactly he was converted to believing the deficit was the root of all evil. In an interview with Reuters on 1 May, five days before the election, Clegg said this:

 

"Us siding with Labour? It's siding with common sense. My eight-year-old son ought to be able to work this out -- you shouldn't start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing. If you do that you create more joblessness, you create heavier costs on the state, the deficit goes up even further and the pain with dealing with it is even greater. So it is completely irrational."

 

Yet now, he claims his mind suddenly changed immediately after the election, due to the Greek crisis. This in spite of the fact that the Greek crisis had already completely kicked off in April, and on 28 April, the OECD said "contagion has already happened" in the Eurozone - three days before Clegg insisted in his Reuters interview that it would be "irrational" to cut the deficit this year. Either he's an utter moron with as much economic sense as Craig, or he's a slimey opportunist.

I'm going for the latter!

Very good speech from Vince Cable - rather better than Clegg's on Monday.

 

Opening lines...

 

I have managed to infuriate the bank bosses; acquire a fatwa from the revolutionary guards of the trades union movement; frighten the Daily Telegraph with a progressive graduate payment; and upset very rich people who are trying to dodge British taxes. I must be doing something right.

 

He attacked bankers and Bob Crow in one sentence...

 

On banks, I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy than Bob Crow could achieve in his wildest Trotskyite fantasies, while paying themselves outrageous bonuses underwritten by the taxpayer. There is much public anger about banks and it is well deserved.

 

He went on to announce something which would definitely not have happened without Lib Dem input...

 

And the principle of responsible ownership should apply across the business world. We need successful business. But let me be quite clear. The Government’s agenda is not one of laissez-faire. Markets are often irrational or rigged. So I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour. Why should good companies be destroyed by short term investors looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors sometimes forget their wider duties when a cheque is waved before them?

 

Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago. I want to protect consumers and keep prices down and provide a level playing field for small business, so we must be vigilant right across the economy – whether in the old industries of economies textbooks or the newer privatised utilities and cosy magic circles in auditing, law or investment banking. Competition is central to my pro market, pro business, agenda.

 

All good stuff.

Capitalism is an essential component of any modern society and should be its driving force, as Gordon Gekko said "Greed Is Good", success and making something of one's life should be a source of great pride and instead it is sneered at as if being a success in life is the same as being a paedophile or rapist

 

For the last 13 years we have had creeping socialism, government thinking they know best and burdening entrepreneurs with more rules and regulations and directives and paperwork, if Britain is to be a powerhouse again it needs a free market for entrepreneurs to be successful and less regulation

 

Entrepreneurs will lead the recovery so I hope Cable will leave business alone to do business

Capitalism is an essential component of any modern society and should be its driving force, as Gordon Gekko said "Greed Is Good", success and making something of one's life should be a source of great pride and instead it is sneered at as if being a success in life is the same as being a paedophile or rapist

 

For the last 13 years we have had creeping socialism, government thinking they know best and burdening entrepreneurs with more rules and regulations and directives and paperwork, if Britain is to be a powerhouse again it needs a free market for entrepreneurs to be successful and less regulation

 

Entrepreneurs will lead the recovery so I hope Cable will leave business alone to do business

 

Um no. It was unrestrained capitalism that caused the financial crisis, and then it needed an element of socialism (nationalising banks) to save capitalism.

Someone really needs to ask Clegg straight out when exactly he was converted to believing the deficit was the root of all evil. In an interview with Reuters on 1 May, five days before the election, Clegg said this:

 

"Us siding with Labour? It's siding with common sense. My eight-year-old son ought to be able to work this out -- you shouldn't start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing. If you do that you create more joblessness, you create heavier costs on the state, the deficit goes up even further and the pain with dealing with it is even greater. So it is completely irrational."

 

Yet now, he claims his mind suddenly changed immediately after the election, due to the Greek crisis. This in spite of the fact that the Greek crisis had already completely kicked off in April, and on 28 April, the OECD said "contagion has already happened" in the Eurozone - three days before Clegg insisted in his Reuters interview that it would be "irrational" to cut the deficit this year. Either he's an utter moron with as much economic sense as Craig, or he's a slimey opportunist.

 

When you have run a business from scratch to turn over £4.8m a year when you are 28 then you have every right to lecture me until then your socialist bull$h!t doesn't wash with me, I work in the real world, I run a business although as it is niche it turns over a lot less than my clothing company from a few years back but you get all your theories from textbooks I work in the sharp end of business.

Capitalism is an essential component of any modern society and should be its driving force, as Gordon Gekko said "Greed Is Good", success and making something of one's life should be a source of great pride and instead it is sneered at as if being a success in life is the same as being a paedophile or rapist

 

For the last 13 years we have had creeping socialism, government thinking they know best and burdening entrepreneurs with more rules and regulations and directives and paperwork, if Britain is to be a powerhouse again it needs a free market for entrepreneurs to be successful and less regulation

 

Entrepreneurs will lead the recovery so I hope Cable will leave business alone to do business

Have you learnt nothing from the collapse of the banks? A collapse was caused by the very "Greed is good" attitude you celebrate.

On Cable - it WAS a good speech, although I want to see whether he's actually going to make good on his words and make the capitalist fat cats pay their share for the mess they created. It does open an interesting proposition though - Cable has considerable muscle in the Coalition, so if he starts insisting on less pandering to the rich, he may well get his way, as Cameron knows he can't afford to lose Cable, because of the sway he holds among Lib Dem MPs and the fact he's probably one of the most popular and credible members of the government in the eyes of the public.

Have you learnt nothing from the collapse of the banks? A collapse was caused by the very "Greed is good" attitude you celebrate.

 

I am not talking about banks I am talking about entrepreneurs and small to medium sized businesses

 

I have a lot of issues with banks, I know a number of people who are being denied business funding atm by banks and something needs to be done about that, if they start awarding themselves big bonuses then they need to be punished but what I am referring to is small and medium and family run businesses

When you have run a business from scratch to turn over £4.8m a year when you are 28 then you have every right to lecture me until then your socialist bull$h!t doesn't wash with me, I work in the real world, I run a business although as it is niche it turns over a lot less than my clothing company from a few years back but you get all your theories from textbooks I work in the sharp end of business.

 

How does this have anything to do with knowing when to cut the deficit?