Grayling and Watson. Two very different cases.
Following Chris Grayling’s unofficial foray into the debate about guest houses which refuse to accommodate gay couples, Watson has pounced yet again and one of his more temperate lines of attack alleges Conservative ‘double standards’.
Apart from the obvious fact that there were concerns over Watson’s possible candidacy, which had nothing to do with bed, breakfast or homosexuality, from the moment he signalled his intention to stand, Grayling’s case bears no serious comparison.
Despite misleading headlines in the Observer, Grayling made a reasonable point, in moderate language, at a private discussion of the issue. Bed and breakfast owners, he suggested, formed a different category to hotel owners and should have the right to determine which guests they were prepared to welcome into their own homes.
Whether you agree with him or not, and personally I am undecided, it was not an outrageous statement. It was certainly not, and this is important, comparable with expressing his own reluctance to house guests, based on their sexuality.
Clearly there are a spectrum of views and behaviours that, as a society, we do not declare unlawful, but which are nonetheless incompatible with candidate selection for a modern, moderate political party. Grayling expressed a view on the extent of that spectrum, Watson placed himself within its parameters. We can uphold the right to hold a set of views, without condoning their content.
The truth remains that both the Conservative party and Ulster Unionists were concerned about Watson’s propensity for immoderate outbursts on a range of subjects. He has responded to their decision with a volley of immoderate outbursts. The decision is therefore vindicated.
Comments
Nevertheless, in this enlightened day and age, is it really that important?
Grayling is saying that people like Watson (or his wife or whatever lame way he phrased it) should have the right to refuse entry to their home if it's a B&B.
He might not say HE would do it, but he is defending Watson's line of argument - a nuance I now accept, but which will be lost to most.
Grayling did vote for the opposite though, so I'm not sure how he can reconcile being "sensitive to faith groups" with his anti-discrimination position.
I think there is an argument yet to be had about public and private space, and how a B&B fits into this.
Enjoyed the piece on attacks in Russia, BTW.
He is NOT defending the line of argument, he's defending the right to make the line of argument. That's an important distinction.
Thanks for the words on the Russia article.
I suspect ditching Watson will be the biggest mistake yet of UCUNF. Removing a candidate for holding concientious Christian beliefs - hey, that'll prise away votes from the DUP.
1. Challengers in seats usually need campaigning time prior to an election - the Ashcroft principle.
2. Post-Watson, many UUP activists will be reluctant to work for the party. Difficult to run campaign when you alienate your potential volunteers.
3. Clear dividing lines for Singing Willie:
A. Not being a "Tory stooge" as he'd put it
B. Not being socially liberal (might hold back drift to TUV)
4. If Empey entered the race, he will do so without any personal vote and his leadership would end if he was defeated.
I'm having difficulties with comment moderation at the moment. The number of comments to be moderated on the dashboard isn't corresponding with the emails I'm getting and, if you sent a comment earlier, it didn't appear at all.
Apologies to you and anyone experiencing the same problem. I've switched to the draft dashboard to see whether that helps. Please let me know if you notice anything go missing again.
The context for his comments were clear, so how is that not defending the Watson argument? He's saying people - like Watson - should be able to refuse entry to gay couples. I really don't 'get' this Ucunf spin at all, unless we're dancing on the head of a pin for the bloody-mindedness of it.