Is the Mail serious? They’ve had a while to plan this headline. This is what they stayed up all night writing?
Britain is a country in which the Royal Family don’t even stay married to each other. Where senior Conservative politicians have affairs and sell books about it. Even Tiger Woods is frequently described, within my hearing, as ‘legendary’ by otherwise conservative-minded young men (men who have no interest in golf whatsoever), and is, perhaps incidentally, still being paid $90million by Nike to wear hats made in less-than-favourable conditions. (Still waiting for the moral outrage from the Mail about that.)
Yet they think people won’t vote for Ed Miliband because he’s not married to his partner? They think people will believe that because they’re not married, he should be forced to confirm paternity of his own kid?
Ironically, the Milibands are wonderful example how couples can be happy, successful and family-oriented without signing a piece of paper to prove it in law. This is not going to put him in the shade with the British public. They have plenty of reasons to feel Labour are out of touch with their mood but this isn’t one of them.
On the other hand, it might just make a few more people notice just how out of touch the Daily Mail is.
The Daily Mail is just the Daily Mail and best ignored. Its influence is vastly over-stated – we’d never have had any progressive legislation if it lived up to its iconic status.
There is a story there though. I’m not married to my partner, but my name is on the kids’ birth certificates and EM should have done that. There is no guarantee that human rights etc stuff will stay the same for their lifetimes. It may be inconvenient (or much more than that) for his child (and the next one) to have to prove parenthood in the future.
Like not making a will, not signing the birth cert is just selfish and short-sighted. Bad move EM.
Hello Tootingtrumpet,
Thanks for this excellent post, you make some very good point!
Best,
Lou