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

By: Drewski

Drewski — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:29:30 +0000

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

By: Paul McMichael

Paul McMichael — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:34:16 +0000

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.

By: bama-stu

bama-stu — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:45:19 +0000

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.

By: pinkfone

pinkfone — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:39:27 +0000

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!

By: bama-stu

bama-stu — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:53:56 +0000

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.

By: Wayne M.

Wayne M. — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:00:39 +0000

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!

By: bama-stu

bama-stu — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:50:00 +0000

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.

By: Alan O'Flynn

Alan O'Flynn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:43:31 +0000

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.

By: petenick

petenick — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:50:19 +0000

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.