November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

Nasty, or nice? New mood among UK’s Conservatives


(London) Who’s nasty now?

Sipping cocktails and swapping gossip on a roof terrace decorated with pink balloons and rainbow flags at a gay-oriented disco, leading figures of Britain’s once-hidebound Conservative Party mingle happily with those many in its ranks once derided.

Once described – by a senior Conservative official, no less – as the “nasty party,” the traditional home of Britain’s sometimes intolerant upper classes has undergone something of a transformation as it bids to win power for the first time since 1997.

But critics ask: is the makeover real or cosmetic?

Activists gathered in the northern England city of Manchester for an annual conference certainly showed off the newly inclusive spirit this week – dancing at the party’s first official gay reception, promoting aspiring lawmakers from Britain’s minority communities and cheering a newfound commitment to tackling poverty.

The loudest praise was reserved for the architect of the party’s niceness transfusion – David Cameron, the slick 43-year-old ex-public relations executive who’s overhauled his organization’s image and now seeks to oust Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“You only have to look around the conference and see the different types of people who are here,” said Stuart Andrew, a gay Conservative candidate for a House of Commons seat. “They just wouldn’t have been here 15 years ago.”

But Tory suspicion runs deep in much of Britain – largely because of a reputation for heartlessness toward the poor.

The Conservatives swept to power under Margaret Thatcher in 1979 on a promise to modernize Britain’s economy, sweep away bureaucracy and tame powerful trade unions. They were reelected in 1983, 1987 and 1992, but without ever shaking off their image as the party of the white, affluent and sometimes intolerant.

Thatcher once shut down school programs for milk distribution, earning the nickname “Thatcher the milk snatcher.” In the 1980s, the party imposed laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools and shuttered coal mines – ruthlessly crushing strikes and putting generations of men in mining communities out of work.

By 1997, Tony Blair’s Labour Party was able to paint itself as the party of progress and an inclusive, modern Britain – and the Tories knew they had a problem.

Theresa May, the Conservative chairwoman, admitted as much in a speech to the party conference in Bournemouth, England on Oct. 7, 2002.

“There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours,” she said. “Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the nasty party.”

The notion stuck – even though many still view Thatcher as a savior of Britain’s economy reversing the country’s steep decline, breaking its dependence on unions and industrial behemoths – giving the country needed a dose of nasty medicine.

But Cameron’s skeptical stance toward the European Union has angered leaders in France and Germany, who warn relations with London could sour if he takes power.

Many hear echoes of Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, in Cameron’s attacks on big government and welfare dependency.

Some conference delegates – and outsiders – were angered by convention invitations extended to Latvian and Polish lawmakers from parties accused by human rights activists of being homophobic or anti-Semitic.

It has led to questions about Cameron’s drive to end his party’s former hostility toward minority groups – a sentiment traced back to Thatcher’s era, when a contentious law, known as Section 28, barred teachers from promoting homosexuality in school lessons.

Other skeptics also question Cameron’s commitment to reducing poverty, pointing to his plans to freeze the pay of millions of government workers while helping the wealthy by cutting taxes on inherited mansions.

Nonetheless, Cameron, elected leader in 2005 with a mandate to drag his traditionalist followers into the modern era, has worked doggedly to shed the party’s image as a haven for the rich and expensively educated.

He rides a bicycle to work, rather than a chauffeured limousine. He’s quashed borderline racist rhetoric on immigration to focus on the environment and health care, and has demanded that his party promote more women and ethnic minorities to key positions.

In intimate Web videos, Cameron shows off his domestic life – washing dishes in the sink of a chaotic kitchen while patting the heads of playful young children.

His wife Samantha – a successful businesswoman who updated the tired image of stationery brand Smythson – is in tune with the party’s mood, eschewing haute couture for a relatively inexpensive dress from mainstream department store Marks & Spencer on the day of her husband’s keynote convention speech.

It’s a makeover designed to combat the party’s corrosive image as Tory “toffs,” and summed up in their slogan: “We’re all in this together.”

Yet opinion polls show many Britons aren’t persuaded that Cameron has transformed his party, or convinced his political rebranding is genuine. Pollsters say voters often recall how Cameron was photographed cycling to Parliament – as a car and driver followed close behind with his suit and briefcase. They also note the leader’s privileged education at Eton and Oxford.

Though Cameron is overwhelmingly favored to win Britain’s next national election, some detractors suggest his victory would be a rejection of Brown’s flagging government, rather than enthusiasm for the Conservatives.

Britain has thus far not embraced the Tory chief as it did Labour’s Tony Blair before his landslide election 1997 win – when millions were swept along by ‘Cool Britannia’ rhetoric, and promise of sweeping social reform.

“It’s not the groundswell of support that Blair received before 1997,” said Julia Clark, head of political research at Ipsos MORI. “Cameron has successfully detoxified his party and is seen as a credible leader – but that’s the problem, it’s all about Cameron. People aren’t so sure about the rest.”

Cameron won praise after he formally apologized for the anti-gay Section 28 in July at an event ahead of London’s Gay Pride rally.

He was also applauded for a 2006 speech in which – pledging tax incentives for marriage – he said a union was just as valid “whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man,” a key break with party tradition.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, insists Cameron’s attempt to change attitudes has been a success.

“There has been a transformation,” he said. “I think it is inconceivable – not just 10 years ago, but five years ago – that we would have had the leader apologizing for the damage and offense caused by Section 28.”


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • Drewski Said: October 14th, 2009 at 12:29 am
    • No question Thatcher implemented very necessary and very painful reforms. The US hasn’t come close to what the UK achieved, and it did benefit the vast majority of people in the long term. Those reforms also involved a good amount of pointless ideology and waste: arguably the best example is British Rail, which was privatized without any real effort to put a market-ready product on the market. Worse, the “market” lesson learned by Tony Blair and New Labour was creation of a massive and expensive bureaucracy to function as a theoretical private-sector competitor–which forced NHS’ administrative cost to the highest in Europe. The old Tories are still around, because they really haven’t learned their lesson. Nothing about the “New” Tories suggest that they are ready to devolve more power–especially real powers of taxation–away from Whitehall. The UK should in theory be a federal state, like Germany or the US; I don’t recall hearing sustained Tory interest in separating UK issues from, say, English issues (and England hasn’t been given the appeaasement of home rule, unlike Scotland and Wales). This is a lot like DC’s current status. That’s supporting individual freedom? And it’s also very true that the Tories have very little to brag about when it comes to the recent state of built Britain. By the late 80s, London was a pit. It was dirty, traffic was snarled, the population was dropping, and becoming more and more a city of the privileged rich and the miserable poor. Recall that Thatcher eliminated the Greater London Council because it was too leftist. This would be the roughly comparable to removing NYC’s government and pushing the boroughs to come up with whatever ad-hoc arrangements they could manage. This happened in every major urban center in the UK. It was a form of gerrymandering which still leaves UK urban areas at a net disadvantage to those in Germany.

      What’s all this got to do with gays? The former lefty party moved to the center. It embraced the Tory love of money, tempered it, and embraced American-style higher-risk financial services (which is how Abbey National came to be bailed out by Santander). When money’s easy, it’s easy for the haves to ignore discriminatory behavior. It’s great when money’s easy, and you’ve been with a guy for a year, and you decide to buy a million-pound house. Will the Tories tamper with the law? What’s to stop some knob like Duncan-Smith from letting his true wingnut flag fly, and maybe move civil unions to a new status with Inland Revenue? Suddenly your money is going for taxes–but if you were str8, you wouldn’t be touched. Does anybody hear the Tories arguing to call gay couples “married”? Remember that court decisions can have a hugely redirecting impact in a common-law legal system. If you’re not technically married, but you have a partnership, why should Inland Revenue treat you any differently than two cohabiting friends? This is a large part of the problem that’s brought Annie Liebowitz to near-ruin in the US, after her WIFE Susan Sontag passed away.

      The Tories will almost certainly get in, not unlike the Tories in Canada, and for the same reasons–the primary liberal party is tired. Where the US has one center/ center-right and one far-right party, the UK has one center (Labour), one center with a little right (Lib Dem), and one center-right (Tory). In a pretty universe, the Lib Dems would keep the Tory vote well below 40%. If you want some examples of what even a 38% vote can do to a country, ask our Canucks about Mr Harper and the Reform–oh, sorry–Conservative Party up there. In Canada, the Tories yanked funding for Toronto Pride and a Montreal arts festival, because they offended redneck Prairie tastes. I don’t trust the “New” Tories or Cameron for as long as it takes to realize my cat peed in a corner

  • Paul McMichael Said: October 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
    • bama-stu: well, there are always dangers in looking back too far. Thatchers did change many things for the better, things long overdue. But in your case, you seem to have skipped over the full impact Tory govts had over 2 decades in power. Remember the state of the NHS? the railways privatisation disaster? the failure to equalise age of consent or any other measure to advance gay rights? There is no evidence of a move to the left by current labour govt. If you want policies encouraging private wealth and public squalor then vote Tory. I don’t beleive that some Tories will want to roll back gay rights… think it can’t happen? Just wait until Cameron needs to toss a bone to the rabid right then we will be first in line to appease them.

  • bama-stu Said: October 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
    • pinkfone: If you look at Tony Blair when he first took over the Labour Party, he adopted many Tory party ideas and positions. He basically moved Labour towards the right. Now Gordon Brown and the rest of his cronies want to go back to the old Labour (aka Socialism).
      While she had her faults (and Section 28 is one of them) Margaret Thatcher dragged the UK (and the Labour party along with it) into the 21st century. If she had not done what she did, Britain today would be in a far worse situation than it was.
      You should read up on your history and the Winter of Discontent (when Labour under James Callaghan were in power). Wild strikes with no secret ballot, power outages, and Labour in thrall to the Socialist and Communist unions.

  • pinkfone Said: October 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am
    • Section 28 was a total right wing anti gay homophobic law brought in by Mrs Thatcher and her cronies; it caused suffering and some suicides amongst young gay people who thought they would be criminals if they came out! Now “Dave” as he styles himself wants us to form a loving circle and forget it; well some of us can’t. Mrs Thatcher was an evil old baggage who ruined the UK and paved the way for further ruin. “Dave” says we have a broken society but it was Mrs T who started the damage by causing industrial mayhem and social fractures; she said there was no such thing as society!

  • bama-stu Said: October 12th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
    • If you follow the history of politics in the United Kingdom you will know that the traditional Labour Party (and the one that is re-surfacing) is far left socialist. It was the Labour Party that nationalized the auto makers, the coal mines, the ship building, the airlines, and almost every other industry in the country – and then ran them into the ground because they were indebted to the unions. It was Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party that turned the UK around. If you check back to when Tony Blair and New Labour were elected, he had co-opted many of the Conservative positions.
      Fast forward to 2009 and Tony Blair is gone, Gordon Brown is PM and the old Labour socialists are banging their drums again.
      And while the Conservative Party in the UK carries the name ‘conservative,’ it is still far to the left of the Republican Party in the United States.

  • Wayne M. Said: October 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
    • The efforts by Conservatives in Britain and Canada (and Republicans in the United States) to portray themselves as friendly to LGBT folk reminds me of Ka’a, the boa constrictor in The Jungle Book. He was very friendly and peaceful with Mowgli– while hypnotizing him so he could squeeze the life out of him and destroy him.

      Never, never, never, never trust a Conservative, especially those who also court social conservatives!

  • bama-stu Said: October 12th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
    • Alan – I grew up in England throughout the 60s, 70s and first part of the 80s. While I agree that the Tories under Margaret Thatcher did not always do right by the LGBT community, I have to say that I remember what it was like living under a Labour government. I remember 3-day work weeks because the coal miners, and countless others were on strike. We had scheduled power outages. I remember my Mum heating my sisters baby food on a parafin heater because the electric was off. I remember her baking bread from scratch because the bakers had no electric and you couldn’t buy bread. I remember garbage piled up in the streets. I remember the Labour government having to get loans from the IMF. Britain was the “poor man” in Europe and the world. Just as people believed that Labour had changed their ways under Tony Blair, why is it so hard to believe that the Tories have changed their ways under David Cameron. My entire family still lives in England, and they cannot wait to get rid of Labour and let the Tories fix the mess that Gordon Brown has made of the country and the economy.

  • Alan O'Flynn Said: October 12th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
    • I’ve lived in UK for over 24 years now, and I pray that folk will have memories long-enough to recall what the Tories were like in the past and not to trust them.

      Cameron may have been applauded for a 2006 speech in which – pledging tax incentives for marriage – he said a union was just as valid “whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man,” a key break with party tradition.

      But he has NOT said that he will continue to leave the Civil Partnership legislation as it is, parallel to civil marriage, instead of changing it to something which any two people (two brothers, two sisters, two anybodies) can contract. Because that IS something which was proposed within the Conservative party previously!

      He has proposed former Conservative leader Ian Duncan-Smith to take the lead on families, and that man’s main intention is to support “marriage” above all else. He is NOT in favour of genuine equality and he is about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake as far as I am concerned.

  • petenick Said: October 12th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
    • Perhaps it’s due to some of the upper
      class closet-dwellers who are now finding that it’s better and honest to be OUT. The USA can learn a-lot from the
      UK about a-lot of things. No, they are not perfect but they do know the art of compromise, something the majority of Republicans here can certainly learn.

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook