How many cabinet ministers will vote against gay marriage?

Faith minister Sayeeda Warsi, who attends cabinet, is the latest figure to raise concerns over the policy.

Ed Miliband declared earlier this week that the shadow cabinet was "united in supporting same sex marriage" but David Cameron can't say the same of his top team. Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, a renowned social conservative, has said that he does not support the move and Welsh Secretary David Jones has indicated that he will vote against it while refusing to say why. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond does not oppose equal marriage as such but has suggested that its introduction should be delayed to allow the government to "focus on the things that matter".

Today it emerged that Sayeeda Warsi, who attends cabinet as minister for faith communities and as a senior Foreign Office minister, also has concerns over the policy. In a letter leaked to the Daily Mail, Warsi asked equalities minister Maria Miller, who is piloting the legislation through parliament, to provide "clarity" on "how the legislation will protect religious freedom". She added: "What legal protection will churches and other places of worship be afforded from challenges if they refuse to undertake same-sex marriage? What legal support will be afforded to churches and others places of worship if they're challenged individually or as an organisation?"

Warsi's letter, sent after Miller's statement to MPs, is significant because it shows that even the "quadruple lock" preventing religious institutions being forced to marry same-sex couples has not been enough to assuage Tory concerns. The lock will ensure that neither religious organisations nor individual ministers will be compelled to hold the weddings on their premises, that no discrimination claims can be brought against them for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, and that religious organisations who do support equal marriage will be required to formally opt-in. In addition, the Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned from hosting same-sex weddings without new primary legislation. Some Tories are pushing for the latter measure to apply to all religious organisations.

Should Conservative cabinet ministers vote against equal marriage, it will not qualify as a rebellion because David Cameron has offered a free vote to his MPs. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have since followed suit after the government agreed to allow religious organisations to hold same-sex marriages.

Faith minister Sayeeda Warsi asked equalities minister Maria Miller to offer greater "clarity" on gay marriage. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.