Posts Tagged ‘Tories’
Looking through Twitter can often provide an imperfect, but relevant sampling of people’s preoccupations. Scanning through the entries it seems to me that the metropolitan elites are drawn towards voting Yes to AV.
I can’t say that is the case, irrefutably, but that’s the impression I’m getting.
The Right-wing media are for the status quo, and saying No to AV.
As far as I can see much of this Yes to AV sentiment is based on the notion that there is a malaise within the electoral system and that AV will change that, or at least that is the hope.
I can’t quite see the evidence behind it, or how it will galvanise a largely cynical population to vote for mostly useless politicians with their own agendas. I think that the problem of electoral participation in Britain and many other countries is more deeply seated than the choice of voting system. There is a significant disenchantment with bourgeois politics in general, and voting specifically. I suspect the problem of voter participation has more to do with the social hegemony and class nature of a society than the selection and use of any particular voting system.
My sense is that in Britain there will be a low turnout for this referendum, those particularly keen on AV will vote for it and will make the effort to vote. Those disenchanted won’t bother, many others voting against it as the Yes to AV arguments don’t seem to have won people over. My gut feeling is that it will fail.
I would like to think that the political consequence of a defeat of AV could be the eventual disintegration of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, but we’ll see.
The discussion on the Alternative Vote scheme in Britain is stupefying, even for those with an interest in politics.
Whilst I wouldn’t dream of ever telling my UK readers how to vote, I did come across one gem on AV, by Waterloo Sunset.
I will paraphrase:
1. The vote on AV was a concession to the Lib Dems.
2. They have always been keen on voting reform and will swallow many of the unpalatable measures put forward by the Tories, for the sake of voting reform.
3. Should the Lib Dems not achieve voting reform then it increases the likelihood of the coalition breaking up.
4. If the coalition breaks up then probably there will be an election, and the Tories could lose.
5. So voting no to AV is one way of getting rid of the Lib Dem-Tory coalition.
A fine argument in my view.
Many consider privatisation in Western countries to be a failed experiment of the 1980s and 1990s, yet it is the backbone of the current Tory government in Britain.
In their pursuit to sell off the family silver the Tories might well do away with the monarch.
On stamps, that is.
You can almost hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Neanderthal Tories and backwoodsmen as they contemplate the demise of Queen Elizabeth from British stamps, the Guardian has more on that possibility:
“The coalition is looking for a way to ensure that the Queen’s head is not removed from stamps if the Royal Mail is sold to a foreign buyer, business secretary Vince Cable said today.
Since the “penny black” went on sale in 1864, every British stamp has borne the profile of the reigning monarch. However, the government is now in talks with Buckingham palace after it was pointed out that there is no explicit guarantee that the tradition would continue if the Royal Mail is sold.
Speaking on BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show, Cable said: “We have thought very hard about how we protect the brand – the royal family. There is provision within the legislation to stop the abuse of it,” he said. “But now it has been pointed out that there’s nothing specifically to stop whoever runs the Royal Mail in future dropping the royal head.
“I think it is unlikely they would, because it is a very powerful brand, but we will talk to the palace about whether any further changes need to be made.”
The postal services bill to enable the sell-off gives the Queen a veto over any use of her image, but does not insist that her head is shown.”
In the 21st century we are increasingly jaded. We think we seen it all, every weird video, every crime, every shooting, nearly every atrocity and certainly all of the stupidly thuggish actions that the police can take.
Yet they have surpassed themselves.
Four big and extremely fit policemen tackled a wheelchair user.
Yes, that’s correct, FOUR policemen.
Precisely what crime the wheelchair user committed is unclear, and the aggressive interviewer on BBC news shows no sympathy for the plight of the wheelchair user.
Had the wheelchair user had an axe, or a machine gun you might have understood a sense of urgency, but all he had was his hands on the wheels, and as far as I can see was not in any way a threat to the police.
However, it is fairly clear that the Cameron government have let the police off their leash, so be you able-bodied, a wheelchair user, or blind I will bet that you will find nothing but a size 10 boot coming your way, if you decide to oppose the policies of the Tory government.
Update 1: Here’s Jody McIntyre explaining things in the Indy:
“Adding insult to injury is The Daily Mail, which found it appropriate to suggest I’m faking my disability and am mentally inept when it comes to making decisions about my actions. Highlighting a somewhat backwards attitude towards disabled people and their place in society, that over 500 people have already complained about Richard Littlejohn’s depiction of me as Andy from Little Britain (I don’t wear vests for a start), shows whose side the public are on when it comes to what’s acceptable where mocking disability is concerned.”
Update 2: Marko has more on the student that was attacked by the police and the Daily Mail.
Update 3: Jody Mcintyre’s blog is here.
Update 3: CiF Watch strays into the territory of political vitriol and character attacks, all completely irrelevant to the issue of Jody McIntyre’s appalling treatment by four big police officers.
I can’t help wondering if he had held different views, would the attack upon him, as a wheelchair user, instead be condemned?
It takes a certain moral turpitude not to see his manhandling by the police as wrong, it takes an entrenched ideologue to want to use that against a disabled person.
I can only imagine that *if* Jody had been blind then the excuse would have been that his labrador dog was about to attack some riot police, or some such nonsense.
That’s the level of this mindless maliciousness.
Update 4: Littlejohn’s rant against Jody McIntyre produce a reaction:
“The Press Complaints Commission said that they have so far received more than 500 complaints from members of the public, but have yet to make a decision on whether to launch a formal investigation.”
Update 5: I don’t often agree with Sunny Hundal, but his post, Littlejohn & Tories attack Jody McIntyre, and the comments below it make some very good points, particularly Carole-Anne Melia’s:
“As a wheelchair user myself, I’m not surprised to see Littlejohn’s cartoon. For people like me it is part of everyday life to come across such attitudes. I’m forever being treated as having ‘Learning difficulties’ or being shouted at because being in a wheelchair apparently makes you deaf (news to me). The point is that we as disabled people have just as much right to protest as everyone else, though I might not agree with everything that a small minority of protestors got up, but Jody had just as much right to be there. The point is the police dragged a disabled person out of their wheelchair, they had no idea what damage that could have done to him. There was other ways the police could have got him moved, for them it was an easy option. I can walk a bit like Jody but if I was dragged from a wheelchair like that I would have been in hospital with increased damage to my spine. Thank god this didn’t happen to Jody with the what the spineless police did to him.”
Update 6: More evidence is forthcoming, slightly better picture, about 01:16 you can see him being pushed along, then when the camera returns how he’s tossed out of the wheelchair and dragged across the road by the police:
Update 7: This slide show shows how he was pulled about by the police.
Update 8: Pickled Politics has posted on this issue as well, Now Jody McIntyre is being attacked for his pro-Palestinian views.
Update 9: I posed a few questions at Pickled Politics draw out the issues:
1. For those who are critical of Jody McIntyre, would you hold a different view, if Jodie McIntyre held different opinions? In other words, do you view his treatment as acceptable because you disagree with his political views?
2. Do you think it is acceptable for four big and burly policemen to manhandle a wheelchair user in that way?
3. Alternatively, would you think it is acceptable for those four policeman to have manhandled an elderly pensioner in such a fashion?
4. Finally, do you feel that wheelchair users should stay at home and not venture out, just in case ?
I would welcome some engagement with those particular points.
Update 10: Journalism.co.uk has a piece on the Beeb interview:
“An interview on the BBC News channel with Jody McIntyre, the student protestor who was allegedly pulled from his wheelchair during the student demonstrations, has received a “considerable” number of complaints, controller of the channel Kevin Bakhurst said on the BBC Editors blog yesterday.”
Marko has a post on the Police’s treatment of demonstrators in London last night and he knows who is to blame:
“At one level, I was grateful it was the UK rather than, say, Italy or Russia, as individual officers showed a lot of discipline and restraint; things would have been a lot worse if individual officers had lashed out indiscriminately on their own initiative, as police in such circumstances have been known to do. But that is a tribute to the ordinary policeman – not the strategy of the police command, which put its own officers in harm’s way.
The police strategy did not serve to protect people or property from violence; on the contrary. Although there was a minority among the demonstrators that was actively seeking violence, the police strategy of keeping people ketted for hours in the cold, and preventing them from going home, appeared guaranteed to ensure that a riot would take place, and that even some demonstrators who hadn’t been out for trouble would be drawn into it. The strategy of not only keeping people kettled, but then inserting a phalanx of armed police into the kettle was sheer lunacy – what did they think would happen ? The moderate, peaceful majority was lumped together with the minority and treated as dangerous deviants, instead of what they were – citizens exercising their democratic right to protest. Those of us who wanted to move to the second demonstration were prevented from doing so – a violation of the right of freedom of assembly.”
I suspect the Police or their political masters, Cameron and Co, don’t really care about freedom of assembly or other freedoms.
The politicians who call the shots are preoccupied with pushing their policies through and anything else is a distraction. They will, naturally, do lipservice but they probably view anyone who is not a Tory or doesn’t vote Tory as a subversive.
My bet is that Cameron’s government will go down in history as one of the most ideologically bent ones, even exceeding what Thatcher did. They will use the full force of the State against anyone that actively opposes them and we would be naive to assume otherwise.
This is the shape of things to come in Britain.
Update 1: A young student was violently attacked by a policeman wielding a truncheon, AP reports:
“A student was left unconscious with bleeding on the brain after a police officer hit him on the head with a truncheon during the tuition fee protests in central London, his mother said.
Alfie Meadows, 20, a philosophy student at Middlesex University, was struck as he tried to leave the area outside Westminster Abbey during Thursday night’s demonstrations, his mother said.
After falling unconscious on the way to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, the second-year undergraduate underwent a three-hour operation for bleeding on the brain.
Susan Meadows, 55, an English literature lecturer at Roehampton University, said: “He was hit on the head by a police truncheon. He said it was the hugest blow he ever felt in his life.
“The surface wound wasn’t very big but three hours after the blow, he suffered bleeding to the brain. He survived the operation and he’s in the recovery room.”
Mr Meadows and his friends tried to leave the area where protesters were being held in a police “kettling” operation when he suffered a blow to the head.”
Liu Xia is a former civil servant, imprisoned in her own home under house arrest in China.
Her crime? Being married to Liu Xiaobo.
Whilst David Cameron is sucking up to the dictators in Bejing, human rights in China are getting worse, as the BBC shows.
The Chinese state is attacking Liu Xiaobo’s family and friends, as the Toronto Star reports:
“Now, with the award of the Nobel, the government has fired up a fresh campaign against Liu, while at the same time targeting his supporters.
Newspapers have carried anti-Liu essays and opinion pieces calling him a “criminal” and “a Western tool” for suggesting an end to the Communist Party’s monopoly on power.
Meanwhile the government has suggested the Nobel is just part of an international conspiracy to bring disrespect to China’s legal system.
And Wednesday it took the extraordinary step of quashing any hope Liu might have had to have his own acceptance speech spoken at the ceremony in Oslo.
Liu’s family said Chinese authorities have cancelled their scheduled monthly visit with Liu, apparently afraid that he might pass on a message to be delivered to the world at the December ceremony.
Liu’s wife, Liu Xia, had said after visiting him Oct. 10 that he intended to draft a message.
But Liu’s two brothers and a brother-in-law told the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy that they expect no further family visits until after the ceremony, thereby ensuring no message gets out.
The government’s vitriol has surprised many observers.
“I think we expected some reaction after the award, but nothing quite as brutal as what we have had,” says Kerry Brown, a former British diplomat and senior researcher at London’s Chatham House, the international affairs institute.
“The Chinese response seems primitive and heavy handed. I am amazed that people we thought so powerful can get so offended.”
While many regard the awarding of the peace prize as “dubious at the best of times,” says Brown, “the Chinese elite are reacting like this actually matters — and evidently it does, to them.”
One of the most recent to feel the government’s heavy hand is Liu’s long-time lawyer Mo Shaoping.
Mo was forbidden to leave the country Tuesday — plucked from a line at Beijing’s sleek Capital International Airport just as he was about to board British Airways flight 038 to London.
Mo and well-known Chinese legal scholar He Weifang were headed to the U.K. to address a seminar hosted by the International Bar Association. The topic: the challenges of being an independent lawyer in China.”
Nor should we forget that China’s political policies, decided by unelected men, are the one reason that dictators in Burma are still in power.
Paul O’Grady sums up what many people think of the Tories:
For deeper analysis see Paul Krugman’s piece in the New York Times:
“No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.
Britain, like America, is suffering from the aftermath of a housing and debt bubble. Its problems are compounded by London’s role as an international financial center: Britain came to rely too much on profits from wheeling and dealing to drive its economy — and on financial-industry tax payments to pay for government programs.
Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit. And there’s no question that Britain will eventually need to balance its books with spending cuts and tax increases.
The operative word here should, however, be “eventually.” Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further unless it can be offset by a fall in interest rates. Right now, interest rates in Britain, as in America, are already very low, with little room to fall further. The sensible thing, then, is to devise a plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order, while waiting until a solid economic recovery is under way before wielding the ax.
But trendy fashion, almost by definition, isn’t sensible — and the British government seems determined to ignore the lessons of history.
Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.”
There is a very common tactic in politics, if something is moderately controversial then the political party will normally get a junior politician or official to float the idea and see how people react.
If there is sizeable public opposition to the particular idea being floated then the political party can back off or simply claim it was an intemperate remark and not really their true view on the subject.
So it is with Anne Milton’s propose removal of free milk for under fives.
Whilst it might seem uncontroversial to American or European readers the idea of taking milk from the mouths of very young children has a certain resonance with public consciousness in Britain.
For many years Margaret Thatcher, who actually did take the milk away, was labelled the Milk Snatcher, and rightly so.
Even Cameron’s only perceptible skill, PR, let him down in this instance and people are coming to realise that beneath the woolly words, shades of Blairism and talk of the “Big Society” lingers the Nasty Party, just waiting to get out.
Update 1: This is Anne Milton’s letter:
“I am writing to you about our proposals to abolish the long-standing statutory Nursery Milk scheme, which is Great Britain-wide, by April 2011.
There is no evidence that it improves the health of very young children yet the cost of delivering it is increasing significantly, almost doubling in the last five years.
This year, I expect milk provided through the scheme in England to cost us almost £50m – rising to £59m in 2011/12.
It does not provide value for money in difficult times and has become increasingly outdated.
The scheme is the only remaining part of what was known as the Welfare Food Scheme, which was first introduced in 1940 to protect all pregnant women and young children against wartime food shortages.
Over time, the major part of the scheme (milk and infant milk tokens) became means-tested and replaced with Healthy Start.
However, the provision of a free daily drink of milk to any child under five in childcare through the scheme has remained.
As a universal intervention, we think the scheme is out of step with the principle that public funding should focus on the most needy.
Children in more affluent families are likely to be drinking plenty of milk at home.
Children in very low-income families may be less likely to attend childcare, unless publicly funded places are available. If so, they will not be benefiting from the scheme anyway.
I am aware that the abolition of the scheme is likely to he highly controversial, particularly as this will affect some children in low-income families.
Therefore, I am considering increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers from April 2011, which provide a targeted nutritional safety net for pregnant women and children under four years old in the very lowest income families.
However, Healthy Start is yet to be robustly evaluated (results are due in September 2012) and we need to think carefully before deciding whether to increase the voucher value before then within the context of our overall spending priorities.
It could be that we simply increase it in line with inflation (it has been frozen for the past couple of years) with a commitment to consider a further increase if the outcome of the evaluation is positive.
Abolition of the Nursery Milk scheme will be contentious and we can expect opposition from the media, parents, nurseries, childminders and the dairy sector.
However, this should not prevent us from ending an ineffective universal measure – and this would clearly be the best time to do it given the state of public finances and the need to make savings.
The Nursery Milk scheme is a reserved measure and we will need to revoke secondary legislation to abolish it.
However, as you may know, the Scottish Government funds the cost of providing milk to eligible children in Scotland and, therefore, I would welcome your views on these proposals.
To abolish the scheme we would need to revoke secondary legislation and we must move quickly if we want to achieve this by April 2011.
It would therefore be helpful to have your views by Wednesday 18 August.
I am writing similarly to Edwina Hart, the Welsh Health Minister and to Alex Atwood, the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland, where there is a similar, but separate, scheme to Nursery Milk.
I am also copying in Michael McGimpsey, the Northern Ireland Health Minister.
Max Dunbar does a marvellous job of seeing behind the Cameron façade:
This is a fundamental misreading. We can judge a man by the company he keeps, and the content-free PR boss has surrounded himself with extremists and ideologues. He took the party out of the EU’s moderate conservative alliance to form an association with fringe anti-semites and SS fetishists. When the MEP Edward McMillan-Scott protested, he was expelled. Cameron’s A-list candidate for Sutton and Cheam, Philippa ‘Pray the Gay Away’ Stroud, is a Christian fundamentalist who once owned a chain of hostels dedicated to ‘curing’ alcoholics, addicts and the sexually confused; when Stroud lost what should have been a safe seat, he appointed her a special adviser at the DWP.
Stroud leads the Centre for Social Justice, a thinktank set up by Iain Duncan Smith to take the edge off the Conservatives’ public image. (IDS has said as much: he told the Guardian that the party needs to ’present a set of values which represent compassion… You need people to say, rather like they say about Labour, actually these are OK, they are decent people, their heart is in the right place.’) Abortion limit monomaniac Nadine Dorries has been backed by Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON); its director Andrea Williams believes, according to the New Statesman’s Sunny Hundal, ’that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is 4,000 years old.’ Williams also runs the Christian Legal Centre, a pressure group that plants stories in soft media about nurses having their crosses yanked from their necks by uncaring NHS managers and Christian registrars forced to perform civil partnerships at gunpoint. Incredibly, it has been linked with Blackwater, the notorious mercenary army.
Cameron’s Conservative Party has an unhealthy reliance on web-based activism. The influence of the Conservative Home site in Tory circles is undisputed. Its founder, Tim Montgomerie, set up the Conservative Christian Fellowship when he was a nineteen-year-old student at Exeter – can there be a clearer example of a misspent youth? – and its membership now numbers around thirty Tory MPs and at least one Secretary of State. And finally, Cameron’s former chief of staff also used to be the research director for the Young Britons Foundation, a Monday-Club style subgroup that advocates abolishing the NHS and sends its members to residential camps that include training in sub-machine guns and assault rifles.
In this context, the Big Society can be seen as a return to Victorian politics when social welfare was the responsibility of the churches and the occasional eccentric billionaire. David Cameron is the most ideological PM since Thatcher and shares her ambition to return to a pre welfare state society. But at least Thatcher was honest about her convictions. Under the Big Society Cameron’s brave and empowered citizens will queue at the poor-house, food vouchers in hand, while the Jesus Army looks after the kids.
Update 2: Flesh is Grass has a rather good piece on Tory changes in the provision of schools in Britain.
Update 3: In an unrelated instance the Torygraph informs us that Church of England charity set to receive £5million from Government. Hmm.
Whatever you think of David Cameron, and I try not to, you have to admire his gall.
Cameron is, at the present moment, sucking up to the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which must be a bit of a come down for a British PM.
Still, these once imperial powers have more in common than people will often admit.
Perhaps Cameron could inquire about Turkey’s treatment and murder of Kurds?
Whilst I wouldn’t normally be terribly interested in the British political scene even from these early days it’s possible to see how the Tory and LibDem coalition will split, William Hague (once a spotty youth at Tory Party conferences) reveals more:
“”Of course we’ve all had to make compromises, but we’ve made those in a sensible way. Really it is the best of the Liberal Democrat manifesto with the bulk of the Conservative manifesto. And it’s politics, it’s government, to make the necessary compromises. “
Key words: the bulk.
In the run-up to the final deal there were plenty of derogatory comments from Tory politicians showing their natural contempt for the Liberals and they might be able to keep it under control for a period of time during their honeymoon, but it won’t last.
The Tories are downright contemptuous of the Lib Dems, but had such a lust for power that they can moderate it in the short-term.
The Lib Dems, outside of Parliament, will come to hate the Tories and all they stand for, any radicals in their ranks would surely agitate against this coalition.
Certainly, it does give both parties what they want, for a brief period of time, which is POWER.
However, such an alliance is by its very nature unstable and conflicted. if Labour can attack them competently and prepare themselves for a new election then all bets are off.
I can’t see this alliance lasting a year, you might even expect another general election within six to nine months.
That’s the type of political calculation that should be focusing any opposition to the Tory government and their Lib Dem lackeys.
Pundits with far greater expertise than me are contemplating the various permutations which will fallout from the British general election 1) minority Tory government 2) Tory-Lib Dem pact 3) Lib-Lab continuation etc etc.
All very pertinent, but I am sure we will find out in due course once the sordid deals have been done in smoke-filled rooms.
I think what is interesting from this election is the often contradictory nature of how we vote, do we pick a good local candidate? Or are we against his/her opponent? Do we vote for policies or pick parties?
My feeling is that many voted in the British general election on local issues, particularly in those in Scotland, and Wales, whereas in England or at least the Home Counties there was more of a class vote, for the Tories.
The impression I am getting is that there is considerable loathing for Gordon Brown and new Labour, but a distinct fear of the Tories and their slash and burn policies.
Equally, the Tories had their first scent of a victory in years so voted as you would expect, tribally in the Home Counties.
I have no insight as to what will happen with all of the horse trading, but here’s a few thoughts:
1) whether or not Gordon Brown will step down and be replaced is an issue (and if I were a betting man I wouldn’t put money on the Milibands as so much of the Press does, Ed Balls looks a stronger candidate);
2) there will probably be either (or both) a General Election within 6-9 months, and a referendum on proportional representation;
3) it might serve the Labour Party to walk away from Government, let the Tories muck it up and try to beat them in a future General Election;
4) the BNP failed in Barking, thankfully, but their overall turnout of over half a million votes is still worrying.
Update 1: Bob’s election coverage.
Update 3: Phil has more on the Stoke Central General Election Result.
Update 5: Jams on No seat for Griffin mercifully.
Update 6: Martin on the morning after.
Update 8: Galloway, beaten by the Tories! Second time around the Glorious one couldn’t pull it off and came third after New Labour zombie, Jim Fitzpatrick and Tory councillor, Tim Archer. I imagine George will now embark on another fund raising tour of the Middle East or make more of an effort to push his media career at Press TV. Either way expect more inflammatory language from him.
Update 9: Why the Nick Griffin and the BNP lost by Flesh is Grass.
Update 10: There is always a degree of political schadenfreude in elections, but I thought this comment was apt:
“The horrific George Galloway did abysmally too, getting a smaller vote than the utterly un-charismatic, non-celebrity Lindsey German got in the last election. “
Update 11: Possibility the final word goes to Olly and his Onions: Gays attempt to cure Tories.
Peter Tatchell has just sent this wonderful invite out:
“David Cameron “Coming Out” Street Party
2pm, this Sunday, 11 April, outside Conservative election campaign HQ, 30 Millbank, SW1P 4DP
You are invited to join this Sunday’s carnival-style “Big Gay Flashmob” street party.
It has already attracted over a thousand supporters on Facebook. Please sign up:
Following the Tories recent mixed messages on gay rights, including Chris Grayling’s confession that he supports the right of B&B owners to refuse accommodation to same-sex couples, the theme of Sunday’s street party is:
“David Cameron: Come Out! (on gay rights)….David Cameron, what are your gay rights policies?”
“Right now, the Tories don’t have any official lesbian and gay rights policies,” said LGBT human rights Peter Tatchell.
“The Conservative Party annual conference has never voted for gay equality and there are no gay rights policies in any Tory policy document. The Conservatives are offering the gay community no new measures to remedy the remaining vestiges of homophobia.
“Like Gordon Brown, David Cameron supports the ban on same-sex civil marriage and the lifetime ban on gay blood donors. This week, Cameron blocked government plans to ensure that all pupils receive sex education and education to counter homophobia from the age of 15,” said Mr Tatchell.
Co-organiser, lesbian environmental activist, Tamsin Omond added:
“David Cameron talks about gay rights but he hasn’t got any specific gay rights policies. He isn’t saying what he would do for gay people if he became Prime Minister. We want to know.
“Sunday’s street party will be a lot of fun. We hope David will join us. This is his big opportunity to end the confusion and outline his policies to ensure gay equality. We want him to join us – and to bring Chris Grayling too,” she said.