Linkblogging For 16/05/15

Posting will be intermittent here for a couple more weeks. I’ve been a little blocked for the last month or so (yes, I know, I wrote a ten thousand word ebook in three days last week — I expected to write that in one day, and would have done had I been at full writing ability). The election result has made that ten times worse.
I’m trying a new method of getting round writer’s block, which involves restricting the amount of time every day you write, so if it works there’ll be fewer posts at first but it should lead me to writing more in the longer term.
In the meantime, links (and I’ll try at least to post links every day):
I’m not the only one who’s been writing a lot on Mindless Ones at the moment — the posts on Mad Men are worth reading even if, like me, you don’t watch the show.
Millennium on the election and where we go next (NB there have been a LOT of posts from Lib Dems and fellow travellers on this, many very good, but most don’t need to be shared any further right now. There’s a real danger at the moment of searching for scapegoats — it seems that Nick Clegg has been nominated by many, and while I never had much time for him as a leader and think he bears a great deal of responsibility, I also think that spending the next five years pouring vitriol on 12.5% of our parliamentary party may not be the best way to rebuild — so I’m trying, as much as my naturally mouthy nature will let me, to be quiet).
Tom Ewing on Tintin and anti-semitism
Feminist Aspie says “Yes, you do mean me”
And Andrew Rilstone on Star Wars, Watsonism, and Doylism

This entry was posted in linkblogging and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Linkblogging For 16/05/15

  1. Stephen Ruffian says:

    Hi Andy,

    As a Lib Dem activist, I was wondering if you could help advise. I think you know my politics, and I’ve voted Lib Dem in each GE. Since the horrific result the other week, I joined the party. I’ve never done this before, and not entirely sure why I’ve done it now, but it feels like part of the mourning process! Anyway, I was quite excited about voting for the new leader, but it turns out that we get to choose from a guy whose done fantastic work on mental health (but didn’t vote in favour of the fox hunting ban, and was also somewhat less than concrete with his backing for gay marriage), or a fantastic, Northern, telegenic campaigner (who also failed to be entirely pro-gay marriage, and is described as an ‘evangelical’ Christian). Now, I would alwas have trouble supporting a party led by someone who let’s their religion over-ride their politics, but likewise I couldn’t vote for someone who hadn’t been entirely behind the fox hunting ban. So I was wondering how someone like you, who has invested far more time and energy than me in the party, can justify getting behind one of these men…? I don’t want to have to resign from the party so soon, but both of these men have views so very far from my own…

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      Tim is actually entirely in favour of equal marriage — he voted for the bill on second reading, but didn’t on third because he had some problems with the bill itself, not the principle. A lot of my friends in the party are on the exec of LGBT+ Lib Dems, and they all say that Tim wasn’t originally great on LBGT+ stuff — not because he’s a homophobe, but just because he was a clueless cis straight white man. But he went to the people in the LGBT+ group, started asking questions and actually listening to the answers, and got better enough that the biggest supporters of him I know are a bi woman and couple of trans lesbians. His big policy issue over the election was that he was pushing to allow embassies abroad to perform same-sex weddings where one of the partners is British, and he’s currently campaigning to get the same-sex marriage laws amended so that the spousal veto for trans people is no longer in place, and to rescind the ban on men who have sex with men from giving blood.

      Norman, as far as I’m aware, was fine on same-sex marriage. A few of the party’s MPs at the time didn’t vote for the hunting ban, mostly on libertarian grounds. I disagree with them, but it’s not a deal-breaker issue for me.

    • misssbgmail says:

      I suspect I’m one of the women Andrew refers to. Yes, Tim is a christian. I’m an atheist. I have no problems supporting Tim despite this difference because we both recognise each other’s freedom to hold differing views on religion.

      On the LGBT stuff Andrew is spot on: Tim hasn’t got a perfect record on LGBT stuff. However he is very good at, if he makes a mistake, recognising it, acknowledging it, seeking advice on it, & learning from it. This is, I believe, a fantastically valuable trait in a leader.

Comments are closed.