You sold out the unions today Ms Eagles, good luck in getting the squeezed middle to fund the party cuz after today the unions wont be paying out.
I wish that were so, however none of the unions on strike today have ever been affiliated to the Labour Party and given the unions continued to bankroll an unrepresentative party throughout their reign, i doubt they’d stop now, even if it’s a party full of scabs
Ed have upset a lot of the unions who do fund Labour by his words over the past few days…..They are not happy bunnies…..All Ed has now is his squeezed middle!
We’ll put up your taxes and you can pay for better pensions for public sector workers, along with Christine Blower’s 140k a year package. She should show solidarity like a good Socialist and give away much of her wage.
Ed Miliband is being sensible, much better than his over the top reaction in March this year.
Government chose to not save public sector pension contributions ether the employees or the employers. most public sector pension funds should technically be in surplus, but as government has not saved the cash the funds don’t exist. Governments have chosen to use taxation to public sector pensions instead of saving the contributions as it should. Why the hell should the public sector pay more for the theft of their pension funds?
If only the Unions showed so much interest in private sector pensions during Brown’s raid of them during his tenure as Chancellor. He destroyed one of the best private pension systems in the world. The Unions and the usual suspects did absolutely nothing.
We are living longer, contributions have to go up, there is a black hole in the sustainability of current public sector pension provision. Pension age has to go up, women should be working until the same time as men. It is ridiculous that there is a large gap even in 2011 and it is women that live longer too!
As someone is on a low wage, in the private sector, it makes me angry seeing Unions not trying to get the best deal for their members in discussions but out on the streets with other agendas.
Why the hell should my taxes be used to pay for better pensions in the public sector when it is the private sector that pays for them? They are already better paid too. The party can not go on, pensions need to be reformed.
Maybe the Unions and their members need a dose of reality.
I valve what public servants do but there arrogance on assuming they are more superior to those actually living the real life of wage/penision cuts etc while still funding those priviledged people, no way.
When the private sector usually pay between 15% to 40% I don’t think an extra 3% is taking the pee.
When the private sector are having to cut back or even loosing their pensions, why should they have to fund so much to those who carry on expecting this priviledge?
People deserve pensions but the Unions etc are just using the public, most of which I can’t think support them.
The amount of people that would have had to take a day off, unpaid…. not good.
@Jock S Trap
I query the need to strike at this point. However, when you consider the pay of a paramedic, social worker, police control assistant, etc for what they do – it is clear that a good pension settlement is part of the package that foregoes them being paid an equivalent commercial salary. This is the government in part putting the blame for bankers successes at the door of those it is easy to push it – public sector workers, its not politically convenient to punish the bankers bonuses. Also public sector workers are often more vocational than financially driven so it is the government taking advantage.
That said, I support the need to cut government debt – but the speed and voracity is going to damage our public services in ways we have still yet to dream of – and the loss of purchasing power is apparent on our high streets.
I do admit though, the MP’s own pensions should be also up for discussion and cutting!!
“the only difference between marriage and civil partnership is the definition of consummation in the law”
In reality this isn’t the case. If a trans person gets married or enters into a civil partnership, upon legally changing their gender they’re forced to divorce or dissolve their CP. The “separate but equal” thing has a lot of wider implications on people’s lives.
This is just a Labour apologist. Rather than saying “Yes we did a lot of great things in Government but there was still more” she has to defend their record to the point of poo-pooing the marriage equality debate as a sideshow.
This is why I just cannot understand why anyone would ever trust Labour. They talk to themselves, not to the electorate.
I’ve come to the conclusion you cant trust any of them of any party flavour….Maybe we need a Cromwell every hundred years to clean away the political filth that develops?
There’s definitely some truth to that.
………..there’s only one woman worth anything in parliament and that’s Diane Abbott. The rest are just idiotic window dressing and should consider doing something something else, …..like taking in washing or perhaps some knitting….They certainly shouldn’t be in politics.
caroline lucas, glenda jackson, katy clark?? There may not be many but abbott’s not the only female MP i have respect for
Abbot is a racist and a hypocrite but right on LGBT issues.
….How is she a racist ffs?. Give me examples!
Indeed she is a racist. So hard to believe that a champagne socialist can be a racist, isn’t it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/diane-abbott-is-sorry-for-the-record-miss-finland-is-also-black-1354725.html Her remarks were racist.
Watch this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uMbMJ2EUQ
Abbott: ‘So black mums love their kids more than white mums, do they?’
‘I have said everything I am going to say about where I send my son to school.’
Andrew Neil ‘Supposing Michael said white mums will go to the wall for their children. Why did you say that? Isn’t it a racist remark?
Neil: ‘Would you like to make it clear that West Indian mums are no better than white mums or Asian mums?’
Abbot: ‘I have nothing to say’.
Not only is she a racist, she is also a hypocrite and a champagne socialist.
Imagine a white women had said what Abbot said, there would of been outrage.
Abbot a racist but like I said, she is right on LGBT issues!
…pot kettle and black come to mind Luke.The above is about the worst case of scraping the bottom of the barrell I have ever seen on these threads and thats saying summit….. innit?
I have to admit, I like Diane Abbot.
She is the only Labour MP at the moment that actually has a pair and says what she thinks.
She has been very supportive of LGBTQ Rights.
Though Luke I think generally you do raise an excellent point in that while racism isn’t acceptable there is clearly a lesser case if it’s done to white people.
I found that when I went through it.
I’ve had things said to me that no way would be acceptable if said in reverse.
There is double standards it seems when it comes down to racism and it’s affects and it only cheapen real racism when we make some more acceptable than others.
Hatred is Hatred no matter who it is to.
How is Diane Abbott a racist ?
Diana Abbot is a racist! LOL. Oh please.
I think she is a racist, just like you think everyone is a homophobe :)
Just because the only ‘legal’ difference between Marriage and civil partnership is that civil partnerships do not require consummation does not mean that in reality that is the only difference. How about the difference that civil partnerships are widely seen as second rate? How about the fact that religious people who are married by their faith leaders get no legal recognition while straights do?
Well pension and life insurance companies seem to think a difference exists between being in a civil partnership and being married.
For heavens sake woman, your in the shadow cabinet and that’s all you can say in favour of marriage equality…what planet are you on, aren’t you aware of the fight for marriage equality around the world…..think about what the 98%of LGBT wanted and not your own particular feelings on the issue….we’ve asked for it so make it happen, do your job…
MSP Ruth Davidson is a Conservative, not a Labour member, like you have stated in this article.
As for Angela Eagle…. she represents what is wrong with society, she lacks a sense of humour and is desperate to feel the need to be offended.
She’s obviously got a sense of humour – her personality shines in this interview. I met her once at a Stonewall event – she’s lovely
But gets worked up over a few comments over the use of the word ‘queen’ and ‘calm down dear’….., sorry, that sounds to me someone that is desperate to be offended.
Though I don’t think it’s about being offended as much as trying to make something out of nothing to grab headlines.
Yeah, you’re right there Jock!
Yeah, whilst I don’t think Cameron has a future career as a stand up comedian … there is a difference between a poorly judged joke and the offence that some have suggested should be taken.
Luke, Angela Eagle represents what is wrong with society? LOL. Really?
Yeah, she can’t have a bloody laugh and gets offended so easily…. needs to get a grip!
calm down dear, you sound like an old queen.
God, you’re SOOOO homophobic…. OMMMMGGGGG!!!
So, Angela Eagle gets offended very easily.
Believes a women should be the leader or deputy leader of the Labour party, not based on ability but because she is a women.
She doesn’t seem to support same sex marriage.
She also needs to understand her party lacks economic credibility. You can be 10% ahead in the polls but without economic credibility, you won’t win the general election. Study the 1992 general election for details.
Quite a few grammar mistakes in this article too.
Well if everything were working properly in our Parliament then 50% of the candidates would be women (all things being equal).
Clearly this isnt the case – so suggesting that 50% of the top level management in the Labour Party makes a lot of sense’
Based on gender and not ability. That is a disgrace to women’s rights in my view. They should want to get there based on ability, not on their genitalia. Women should be on equal footing to men in opportunity.
Aren’t women put up as candidates too then?
I was under the impression the public voted for who they wanted to stand for them on merit and ability not gender.
The sex of the person we vote for is irrelevent, it’s the ability to do the job is what counts.
If the public have both sex candidates to choose from but chooses one over the other who just happens to be male (or female) that just democratcy in action.
What happens (and I accept this may or may not be a common occurance), if all of the candidates for leader who are male are the most capable and experienced, and similarly all the most experienced and capable candidates for deputy leader are also male – should the members be forced to accept either an inferior leader or deputy leader? Thats just barmy!
Angela is an inspiration to many
……… Methinks your serenity is actually sleep. An inspiration to many? Yea right.
So pleased to see Angela Eagle interview on here. She is a real role model for women today.
Eagle is dead wrong if she thinks the only difference between CPs and marriage is consummation. She ought to take a closer look at it in the area of pensions. CPs do NOT mandate vows, exchange of rings, no such thing as divorce, no marriage certificate and under the law they are NOT marriages and never will be. I despise apologists like her pretending these unions are identical to marriage, they’re not, no matter how many rights of marriage they convey. If they’re marriages, then why isn’t the law changed to reflect it, dumbass? Some gays are our own worst enemy. Has she ever asked herself why New York went directly to civil marriage, no prior civil unions either?
Agreed, Robert. I was disappointed that she seemed to think equal marriage was a non-issue. Separate is not equal.
No, actually, more than disappointed – depressed would be more like it. With LGBT people dismissing equal marriage so casually what hope is there of anyone else seeing how important it is to MANY gay people?
If Angela’s personally happy with a CP, that’s great, but I don’t see why she should deny other LGBT people the choice to have a marriage.
when you say ‘no such thing as divorce’ what do you mean?
I know of two couples who split after a Civil Partnership and were required to end their partnership legally thru the court.
How is this different from ‘divorce’?
And how does not forcing someone to exchange a ring or make vows an argument to say it is ‘lesser’ than a ‘real’ marriage?
She is right – the Tories will NEVER change. For me they will always be the party of section 28. Labour did so much to advance lesbian and gay rights thanks to people like Angela Eagle.
If anyone in your life was homophobic to you then had a changed opinion, do you still see them as homophobic or a changed person? If the former, then you’re pretty bitter person.
I want the LGBT agenda to move forward, not to harp on about the past like you want it to. Equality to be preserved by the few, not the many, seems to be your motto.
And yet had Labour remained we wouldn’t be having a consultation on marriage Equality til at least after 2015.
The Labour Party hasn’t always been for LGBT rights………in 1988 they were for Section 28, not against it. If they can change their minds then I’m open to believe that the Tories can too
Fabulous to see a high profile out lesbian MP happy in her own civil partnership.
……..Pity she is such a pillock at her job!
That’s nice now, isn’t it…you’re not the same persona as serenity and Emma knight above are you..or did we take up cloning in the UK?
Angela Eagle talks a lot of sense shame about some of the others in her party!
London humanity and human rights, angela eagle is who you need for president or mayor which ever she will run for and more liberal gay women is needed in offices and parliaments along with liberal women period in london too much discrimantion against women also, the people in london for their equal rights and womens rights and al around choice to help better the country for humainty instead of violance, and racims , you need people like her running , get her seated and find more , london needs a continued overhaul for human rights and she will help that.
“So, you know, a civil marriage and a civil partnership are effectively the same thing in law …”
I suppose when Angela was a little girl, and the teacher gave all the other girls a lovely rosie red apple and Angela only got a turnip, she used to say “how wonderful, a lovely turnip, just like an apple and so much better than the lump of coal they used to give me”
Another sensitive Labourite who can’t take a joke…pity!
Yet another one that clearly think CP’s are enough.
Yes I see she’s ‘in favour of discussion’ but I do get fed up with comments like;_
“… the only difference between marriage and civil partnership is the definition of consummation in the law.”
How about the difference in the name?
Why do people carry on making excuses that we have enough really but hey lets talk about it,
How about some action about it instead of excuses Angela?
Thankfully we now have a consultation at least.
Something we would not have had, had Labour remained.
I mean are we fighting for Equality or something not the same but as near as?
On this issue alone, it shows the reason we needed a new government.
Maybe now Labour could prove themselves by making marriage Equality, party policy.
That and change Milibore and Ball-Up and I might just start thinking they are electable again.
I love Angela Eagle. Labour need to use her more!
She believes that LGBT people should be satisfied with 2nd class legal recognition of our relationships.
And she only supports a ‘debate’ about marriage equality. The overwhelming majority of LGBT people support legal equality for LGBT people,. The debate is over.
Now we want acton. And if Eagle and Labour refuse to realise this then they need to realise that on LGBT issues they are almost indistinguishable from the Tories.
Oh isn’t she lovely…
Angela Eagle is an utter moron if she believes that we should be resting on our laurels simply because we now have Civil Partnerships.
If Eagle is happy to be treated under the law as a 2nd class citizen then that’s her problem. But to expect the rest of us to do so is offensive, insulting and homophobic.
Ed Millband and Angela Eagle need to get off the fence on this one. We have been having a debate already about civil marriage and the LGBT population OVERWHELMINGLY support marriage equality. Therefore it needs to be introduced (unless Eagle is making the sinister and homophobic suggestion that other people should have a say in whether or not to grant us legal equality.
Labour seems to think that because their party introduced 2nd class legal recognition for our relationships that we should be grateful. What utter miorons.
If the Labour Party don’t get behind marriage equality pretty damned fast then they are waving goodbye to a considerable amount of LGBT support.
Eagle reflects what StonewallUK was all about prior to their caving in to pressure regarding marriage equality. I’ve said this many times before and it bears repeating. Just because there are some who believe that CPs are enough, including enough gay people, they should support the wish of many of us to have the right to marry. Nobody is forcing them to marry and we’re not forcing them to abandon CPs. Let there be choice. CPs aren’t and never will be the universal gold stand for gays or straights, it’s delusional to even think that’s going to happen. Can’t they not see that more countries are turning to marriage and abolishing the disparate unequal forms of legal non-marital unions? They need to see the larger picture. The portability of CPs outside the country will diminish as more countries support for civil marriage equality as wer’e already seeing. Have they learned nothing from New York’s recent decision?
… gold standard… I meant in my last post.
Looks like Angela Eagle agrees with me then, and I think the article last week suggested Ian McKellan agrees too. Cameron was homophobic for calling a gay man a queen. He should apologise, just like the black comedian had to apologise for being homophobic. And just because there are some LGBTory queens who suffer from stockholm syndrome doesn’t make Cameron’s homophobia funny.
Oh Cameron’s voting record on LGBT issues shows what a nasty little reptile he is – not the ‘queen’ joke.
Eagle, however should be focussing her energy on why her party – the Labour Party – still thinks that the 2nd class citizenship that civil partnerships offer LGBT people is adequate or acceptable.
If she does not do that, then she is no better than CallmeDave
Steve C thinks voting for civil partnerships and sexual orientation regulations makes Cameron a ‘nasty little reptile’. Mate, get a bloody grip, you’re mad!
Luke ….why don’t you spend a little more time trying to persuade Cameron to mention marriage equality …there are very few Tories that have even come close to mentioning the words and he is the only leader who hasn’t supported full equality for us. His party stil have the likes of Tebbit who at the end of May asked ” Her Majesty’s Government, … whether they will refrain from using in answers to parliamentary questions expressions such as “equal civil marriage and partnerships” for which they have no definition”. I’m not impressed by Eagle’s answer on marriage eqality but unlike some tories she’s willing to accept these words….I’m not sure who you are trying to convince about Cameron, he hasn’t delivered much so far on LGBT issues, we still don’t have religious CP and never will, we’ll have secular ones performed in very few churches and these will be with us byFeb 2012 – 2 yrs after the change went thru…not that impressive!