SAY NO TO COE

The question was:
Having been refused permission to put their rings on the castle, should the London Olympics Committee be allowed to waste £200,000 putting them elsewhere in the capital?

The answer was:

Yes:  0

No:  58 

I couldn't care less: 3

I don't  think that requires much in the way of comment.

Munguin's Republic says NO to Coe

Grateful thanks to all who took part.

Aye Chris... you were that close... before you opened your mouth and put your foot in it.

Poor old David Cameron. The Times reports a new poll that shows he is back where he wanted to be, 10 points ahead. It’s enough for an actual victory. No hung parliament. Great. Dave must have gone to his bed a happy man last night ....

And then .... and then

Chris Grayling lost them most of the gay votes that they would have got by appearing to put gay people into the same category as dogs.

Currently guest house owners are within their rights to advertise that they won’t allow dogs and, in Mr Grayling’s world some should have the right to refuse rooms to gay people.

Oh dear. Not with the programme there Chris.

The Tories have been desperate to prove to an educated 20 and 30s group of voters who have only known Labour mismanagement, that they have moved to somewhere that roughly equates to the 21st century. At the same time they have had to ensure that the colonel and his memsahib are still blissfully unaware that they anywhere but their comfortable berth in the early 1950s.

It’s hard to appeal to such a diverse audience. And there have to be compromises. But has Grayling thought this one through? What are the practical implications?

How far will it go? Are we to go back to the days when “No Blacks and no Irish” notices hung in B+B windows? (There were no gays in these days of course.)

If Catholics can be offended by gays, why shouldn’t white racists be offended by the idea of a black person sleeping in their beds, or the other way round ? Why wouldn’t a Muslim owner be offended by a Christian sleeping in their beds or vice versa? Come to that, should a misogynist be able to refuse to have women in his B+B? Will Protestants be able to refuse to have Catholics? Who else can refuse to deal with whom else?

How, in any case, will these owners know that a pair of people are gay? They don’t wear labels Chris. They could be just two blokes, (or two women) saving money by sharing a room. They could be brothers or sisters, or father/son, mum/daughter, cousins. Will they ask them at the desk? Loudly? "Are you two poofs?" What will they do if a single gay person turns up? Or is it just the possibility of their bed being used for gay sex that worries them?

And are these same religious people not likely to be offended by heterosexual couples who may or may not be married, or employ birth control? Will they ask for a marriage licence, check that there are no condoms in the luggage and no evidence of any pills? Will they want to look for other appliances?

Do these people really cast their mind to what other people may or may not do in bed or in the privacy of their suites? Seriously? If they do I think they should get counselling! Really I do.

I can’t imagine anything sadder.

It seems to me that Mr Grayling hasn’t thought it out. We’ve had 13 years of Labour ministers who don’t think things through. It looks like we might be in for another 13 years of Tory ministers with the same problem.

Or maybe not if Chris Grayling has antagonised sufficient gay voters.......



Pictured: Chris Grayling; B+B and A notice dating from the dim and distant past, maybe during the last Tory Government?

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN: A REPUBLIC IT IS

First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who took part in the poll on the head of state for an independent Scotland.

It was an interesting result. Let’s be honest though, we’re not causing Yougov any sleepless nights here. With a sample of 43 on a blog with the word “republic” in its title we’re not going to change the world and I haven’t had the Palace of Holyrood House or Bute House on the phone.... yet!

So, here’s the way our 43 readers voted.....:

Republic the non executive President 30 (69%);

Republic with an executive President 3 (6%);

Monarchy with Elizabeth I as head of state 4 (9%);

Monarchy with another member of the House of Windsor as King/Queen 2 (4%);

Monarchy with invited King/Queen from another royal house 4 (9%).

There were 33 votes (75%) for a republic, and 10 votes (22%) for a monarchy. (Yes, I know, these things never add up properly; that’s only 97 %. It’s the rounding up/down.)

Was I surprised? No. Not much. I think I expected a few fewer votes for the Republic, and a few more for Elizabeth, but the percentages are not far off what I expected. Now, should this feeling be mirrored over the country, I wonder how we would elect, or appoint our President?

Given that (s)he is, according to our poll, to be non-executive and therefore more of an ambassador for our country on state visits, and as a host to other leaders in Edinburgh, does anyone have any ideas about who he or she might be?

Thanks again for taking part.