Extracting Gay Teeth....

Chris Grayling has bungled his way into another elephant trap, with reports of a taped conversation with some "think tank" employees in which he says that he sympathises with the owners of a B+B who refused to let gay people stay in their establishment.

The case being put about out in part is that, as a B+B is run from somebody's home, they should be allowed to keep out people they don't like. But the law says they cannot discriminate on sexual orientation, so Grayling's position is strictly speaking, unlawful. Anyway, they are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of race or colour, so why allow it on the grounds of sexual orientation? And, BTW, my dentist runs his practice from a basement in his home: should he be allowed to refuse the extraction of gay teeth...? Of course not: the law is the law, and should apply to everyone.

Another leg of Grayling's position is that the B+B owners were "religious", and gay people offend their "religious" sensibilities. But the law is the law, and Chris Grayling is the Shadow Home Secretary: he hopes that he will get re-elected, that there will be a Tory government and he will then be Home Secretary for real.  So his beliefs and attitudes matter.

Grayling's beliefs are also an indication of how far David Cameron has been successful in transforming his party from the "nasty" (racist, homophobic, misogynistic, elitist, toff riden) party to the "nice" (gay friendly etc...) party. And Mr Cameron has not taken his party very far, if Grayling's private opinions are to be taken as any guide.

If the Home Secretary said that he/she was against equal rights for all before the law, they would be forced to resign. It would make little difference if these views were expressed in private. Chris Grayling has done worse than that: he has expressed one view in private, and another in public, and the view he has expressed in private (which we assume is his actually held view) is that he is against equal rights for all before the law.

His position is fatally compromised. He is unfit to be Home Secretary. He should go quickly, to do less damage to his party.

Broken Britain, or Wishful Thinking

Just what is it about the Conservative party and the spreading of fear and panic? Why do they think a fearful electorate will run to them?

The Tories have been banging on about what they call "Broken Britain" for months now. According to their analysis the UK is a crumbling society: crime is rising, children are being killed in unprecedented numbers by "beasts" and the public should be trembling with fear.... until Dave rides to the rescue....

Except.... Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, has been rebuked by the head of the Office of Statistics for issuing statistics for campaigning Torys that show violent crime rising. In fact the basis for gathering and reporting the stats was changed in 2002. Violent crime is actually falling, but Grayling's figures give a false impression of the actual level of violent crime. Now why would the Tories want people to think that violent crime is rising when it's not?

read more here

Another thread of the "Broken Britain" narrative has unravelled today with a report which shows that the violent deaths of children have decreased by 40%-50% since 1974. And the main reason identified was the interventions and actions of social workers.

The Conservatives have a real cheek pursuing this thread. Under Mrs Thatcher crime and poverty doubled. Violent crime increased. There was a great deal of social disorder, with riots in the streets of the major cities of England in 1981, 1982 and 1987. If Dave wants a paradigm of a "Broken Britain", he should dig up his old diaries of the time when he was a back room boy at Smith Square.

Crime, poverty, violence all up, and riots in the streets.

Now that's broken.