William Hague Defending Evangelical Homophobia
Well I guess his party needs all the votes it can get in the run-up to Thursday, but this is makes alarming listening:
Note how Hague answers a different question to the one answered. He suggests that Philippa Stroud hasn’t been suspended as Sutton & Cheam’s Tory PPC because isn’t in favour of discrimination against gay people, yet that wasn’t what was asked, nor is that what the controversy around her centres around:
Question: “If Philip Lardner, Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire & Arran was suspended after writing on his website that homosexuality was ‘not normal’, why hasn’t Philippa Stroud been suspended – she clearly thinks the same thing?”
Hague: “Well I hope she doesn’t think the same thing and she’s made the statement that I referred to yesterday about her current views, and about the suggestion that she is in favour of discrimination against gay people would be false. I think she has put that right.”
He clearly wants this story to go away, but what if this story is true? Don’t anyone let this drop. Religious extremism, despite what Hague wants you to think, is not the same as straightforward bigotry – it’s far more insidious, and at the heart of a new Tory government it would make the Thatcher years feel like a walk in the park.
What About Philippa Stroud?
Philippa Stroud is the Conservative Party candidate for Sutton and Cheam. She’s also the head of the Tories’ Centre for Social Justice, which guides the party’s thinking on social policies, and for this election its mania about the ‘family’. According to The Observer, Philippa Stroud is also the founder of an evangelical church which tries to ‘cure’ people of being gay:
Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. “Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free,” Abi told the Observer.
“She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus.”
Is this the party you want in government? One whose social policy thinktank is headed by someone who thinks this is ok? I mean why not just make a manifesto commitment to witchcraft? If David Cameron becomes Prime Minister on Friday, her views will be heard and acknowledged at governmental level. Would Section 28 just have been the tip of the iceberg for this thoroughly unreconstructed, nasty party?
And for that matter why hasn’t anyone interviewed her about this yet? And then there’s David Cameron, who professes to support gay rights, yet sees no problem with his MEPs voting against them. Last week homophobic Tory candidate Philip Lardner was suspended for his extreme, anti-gay views, yet Ms Stroud is allowed to continue as a PPC – could it be that ‘Dave’s’ support of gay rights goes only as far as his self-interest will allow?
Big Society? Are You Kidding?
Those of you so far entirely unimpressed with David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ general election meme (basically subcontracting the responsibilities of public services provision from the state down to the individual to save money and, well, the bother), this is for you:
Do NOT Vote Tory on 6th May!
Johann Hari gives good reasons:
Cameron says he is demanding spending cuts not because he has a theological belief in a small state, but because they are necessary to pay off the deficit – but this claim is undermined by the fact that he wants to strip funding from state programmes that actually save us money. Look for example at SureStart, the network of 3,000 children’s centres across Britain built under the current government. They are based on a fascinating series of discoveries. It has been proven that most poor children fall behind in language skills and stimulation long before they ever walk through the school gates – and they never catch up. The first few years of life are crucial for the formation of a child’s mental abilities. Get them early and give them intensive encouragement, with expert advice for their parents, and you can change their life.
This isn’t speculation. In 1964, they launched the first SureStart-style project in Michigan – and Dr Lawrence Schweinhart and a team of academics has been monitoring the kids ever since. Did it work? Well, they were 50 per cent less likely to become teenage mothers than their siblings who weren’t put in the programme, and by the time they were 40, they were 46 per cent less likely to have been to prison and 26 per cent less likely to be on welfare. Their incomes were 42 per cent higher. So for every £1 you spend on it, you save the state £7 further down the line. Yet Cameron, on becoming Tory leader, dismissed SureStart as “a microcosm of government failure”. Now he says he will keep it in some form, but already he says huge chunks of its budget will go to other things, and few expect it to survive long. If he can’t keep the single best policy for reducing inequality – one that costs less than nothing in the medium term – what shreds of progress can survive his rule?
Could an argument like this have played in last night’s leaders debate? Surely not – last night was about points scoring and sloganeering. But this is the type of inevitable outcome from Cameron’s policies if the Tories get into power. Granted Labour’s done very badly at joined-up thinking, let alone joined-up government, but this would be an absolute nightmare. He claims to be opposed to the increased gap between rich and poor which started on the Tories watch (haha), and accelerated under Labour’s – why then offer policies which will keep the process accelerating yet further? And for that matter why vote for them?
Did Cameron Win Last Night?
The popular press would have you believe it, but then again they have an agenda. Look deeper and look at what needs to happen next week more thoughtfully and you get a different outcome. From the Economist:
Our latest poll, conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion, a Canadian pollster, suggests that there is still plenty to play for. It puts the Conservatives in first place among those certain to vote with 33%, followed by the Liberal Democrats on 30%, Labour on 23% and other parties on 14% (see chart, and for full details see here). After pondering the specific swing in marginal seats, the pollster reckons these results would leave the Tories the largest party, with 294 seats, but 32 short of a majority. Labour would have 174 seats, and the Lib Dems 150.
The poll confirms Mr Clegg’s commanding personal lead over his rivals.
And that’s all you need to know. Was Clegg ever likely to get the largest number of seats from his position in this first-past-the-post system? Absolutely not. But if Clegg really gets anywhere near 150 seats he’ll have done far more than he set out to do, and get proportional representation onto the top of the political agenda. I don’t doubt for a moment still that Cameron will press right ahead and form a minority Tory administration, but in rejecting PR (which he’ll do, and there’s no way the Liberal Democrat Party would ever allow Clegg to join in a coalition with him) he’ll ultimately destroy himself and govern with no popular mandate, at just the wrong time in history. The electorate remains incandescent with rage about the expenses scandal, still feels betrayed by a New Labour government which delivered far less than it promised, and hates politics and politicians with a passion. Calling Cameron the winner last night is meaningless, when the sentiment which Clegg tapped into three weeks ago is still very much in play, and still demands satisfaction.
Labour meanwhile are still playing games with the authoritarian state, and wondering why the voters have given up on them. Gosh I wonder why?
Third #leadersdebate Liveblog
Read my liveblog of the third and final leaders debate in this general election campaign.
Fear The Hung Parliament Party!
David Cameron said it was irresponsible to scaremonger in this general election campaign. His hypocrisy knows no bounds:
The Tories say they’re offering ‘change’, yet they offer this party election broadcast, which implies that if you vote Labour or Lib Dem you might die! I mean what the hell is that noose?! But that’s not the only offensive part of this video. Rather than arguing about other parties’ policies they argue against the possible outcome, but in doing so they completely misrepresent their own responsibilities. ‘Behind closed doors politics’? So the ‘wash up’ was something to be proud of, or we’re supposed to forget that? ‘Indecision and weak government’? Really? I think you’ll find Germany managed to absorb an entire economically failed state, and has managed extremely strong government since 1949. And it’s just preposterous to suggest a hung parliament would kill the economic recovery…
To attack the Labour Party and Lib Dems as offering ‘undemocratic’ politics and dithering, should the Tories not win outright is an incredible slur on the electorate, who’ve expressed a clear dislike for politics as it’s been up until now. They don’t want the Tories’ half measure of being able merely to recall MPs – they want a system which is actually representative of their wishes and their needs. They want a system which is founded on cooperation and compromise rather than confrontation. That really would be an evolutionary step forwards for British politics, rather than just being dominated by the same old corporate interests which got their way with the Digital Economy Act.
Not Another Tory Homophobe?!
Is it contagious with them? Conservative Party parliamentary candidate Philip Lardner made a vicious attack on homosexuality, before being forced to take his remarks down from his campaign website:
They can’t help themselves, can they? After David Cameron’s inability to understand that allowing his MEPs to vote against gay rights, and Chris Grayling’s ‘unintentional offence’ at saying B&B owners should be able to discriminate against gay people, and Julian Lewis attacking an equal age of consent, it’s becoming utterly ludicrous to suggest that the party has shrugged off its ‘nasty’ reputation. It’s even more ludicrous for Cameron to suggest that the Tory Party is the natural home for progressives. Fortunately the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, Andrew Fulton has suspended Lardner from the party and ended his candidacy:
“The views expressed by Philip Lardner, the candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, are deeply offensive and unacceptable and as a result he has been suspended as a member of the Conservative party. We therefore do not support Mr Lardner’s candidacy in the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency. These views have no place in the modern Conservative party.”
But as I’ve said before it’s one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk. It remains a party full of very nasty people. Should they really be the party of government next Friday?
Heckler Abused by Tories
Be not surprised. They’re so desperate they even steal handbags from women who heckle their rallies:
This is the party whose support is in freefall. ‘Change’ isn’t playing. The ‘Big Society’ isn’t playing. The ‘Hung Parliament Party’ isn’t playing. No wonder they shove placards in front of their opponents’ faces.
David Cameron’s Agenda
Straight from the horse’s mouth:
During the 20 reasons for 20 weeks abortion campaign I spoke to many representatives from various faith organisations.
Without exception, every single one supported the campaign. Muslim and Jewish faiths all support strongly the reduction from 24 weeks.
David Cameron, is the only leader who has said he wishes to see a reduction in the upper limit. They are not words you will ever hear pass the lips of Nick Clegg.
With all faiths, home and family is paramount, as is community and society. As one Muslim leader said to me, ‘community and care for our neighbour is the pillow of Islam’.
Our families and our neighbours, our community and environment are the key elements of the ‘big society’ David Cameron wants to dictate how we live as opposed to the control of the ‘big state’ we live within today.
If you want to see marriage and the family supported and reinforced. If you agree that social abortion is performed at much too late a stage. If you are appalled at the over sexualisation of young people, if you want the principles of decency and propriety to return, if as a parent you want to send your children to faith schools and have control over the content of sex education taught to your children – it appears to me there is only one party and one man you can and should vote for.
Every Christian and person of faith has to ask themselves the very important question, does my faith play a part in how I cast my vote? If it does, then surely there is only one way anyone of any faith in this country can vote?
Nadine Dorries tells it how it is. What else can anyone add? Vote Tory if this is the Britain you want.
A Tacit Admission of Nastiness
The Tories wanted you to think that their friendship with the Polish Law and Justice Party was benign, that all the allegations against them of homophobia were all in our imagination. Why then has David Cameron sent out gay Tory MP Nick Herbert to take part in Warsaw Pride:
David Cameron is to dispatch the most senior gay member of his frontbench team to Poland to encourage the Tories’ rightwing allies in the European parliament to abandon their homophobic views.
In a move designed to defuse criticism in tonight’s leaders’ television debate that the Tories have allied themselves with extremists in the EU, Cameron has revealed that the shadow environment secretary, Nick Herbert, will attend a gay rights march in Warsaw in July.
Cameron told the Guardian that Herbert’s trip to Poland is designed to persuade the highly conservative Law and Justice party to embark on a “journey” to moderate its views on sexuality.
Last year that wasn’t important. Last year they were going to get away with masking their nastiness rather than having to genuinely grow up as a political party and move away from it. But with Cameron so far eclipsed by Clegg in the opinion polls, whoever is actually running the campaign is getting worried. They should be: this manoevre confirms the Tory leadership knows it’s running a party just as nasty as it used to be. There is a terrible schism between David Cameron and the party itself, and anyone thinking of voting for them should at the very least be deeply unsettled by this. Just who is David Cameron speaking for these days?
Another Tory Homophobe Rears His Head
After Cameron’s laissez-faire attitude towards anti-gay voting by his MEPs and his Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling’s vocal support for the right of B&B owners to discriminate homophobically, we now have the case of Julian Lewis – the Shadow minister for Defence attacking an equal age of sexual consent:
David Cameron was urged to sack one of his frontbench team who said the age of consent for homosexuals should not have been lowered to 16 because it put teenage boys at “serious physical risk” and in danger of catching HIV.
Julian Lewis, the shadow minister for Defence and Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Hampshire seat of New Forest East, wrote to a constituent last week saying he had been “very strongly against” lowering the age of consent for gays from 18 to 16 because of the “seriously increased risk of HIV”. He appeared to compare it with the decision to prevent service personnel aged under 18 from fighting on frontlines. Last night, Dr Lewis reiterated his view, telling The Independent that anyone aged 16 to 18 who had unprotected gay sex was “at risk, and potentially at risk of their lives”.
Dr Lewis wrote last week: “There is a seriously increased risk of HIV infection from male homosexual activity. When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16- and 17-year-olds into frontline situations in the armed forces, for example.”
Dr Lewis, 58, has a history of voting against legislation enshrining gay rights. He opposed adoptions by gay couples and also battled against the repeal of Section 28 – a law enacted by Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government in 1988 to prevent schools from “promoting” homosexuality. Dr Lewis, does, however, back civil partnerships.
“One of the criticisms commonly made of gay relationships is that very often they do not last,” he explained in his letter. “It therefore seems obvious to me that, when a gay couple wish to commit to each other, by forming a permanent relationships, they should be encouraged and assisted in every way.”
Why doesn’t he just go the whole hog and just embrace social Darwinism while he’s at it? I mean our clearly lesser relationships need the help of the state to last, otherwise they’d just fail. Pathetic, and it’s yet another nail in the coffin for Cameron’s attempt to rebrand the Conservative Party as no longer ‘nasty’. Notably Cameron has failed to fire Lewis from his shadow cabinet position, and considering he didn’t discipline Grayling either, is sending out a really strong message that he’s not in control of the attitudes of a party which is now desperately worried it’s losing…
Senior, old-school Tories like Mr Lewis always assume that TEH GAY means that teenage boys need special protection from AIDS RIDDLED OLDER GAYZ, and in their frenzy forget that teenage boys and girls (both gay and straight) tend to make better sexual decisions when they’re better informed about the subject. Then again the Tory Party doesn’t believe in mandatory sex education.
Cameron is a PR ‘Spiv’
Simon Heffer sure believes so:
I do not yet despair of the Tories being the largest party on May 7. Whether they would be able to form a government is quite another matter. Whether they deserve to be able to form one is another still. Perhaps the meltdown at Tory HQ that we are told is under way, with talk beginning about who or what might come next, is an indication that a moral defeat has already taken place. We hear little about the “big idea” of the “big society”, which despite the efforts of propagandists died almost the second it left the womb. The public knows it is inadequate: the big idea it wants is about securing prosperity again, and the Tories are nowhere near a credible plan for that.
I wrote about Mr Cameron in November 2005, before he became leader, warning of the dangers of his dislike of policy, his obsession with style, his flexibility of principle, his absence of belief. “He is a PR spiv,” the piece concluded. “It is not enough.” Should he enter No 10 with a clear mandate, he will be justified in saying that the public thought there was more to him, and his image-driven project, than met the eye. However, his weaknesses have been cruelly exposed not by the rise of Nick Clegg, but by his failure to fight it adequately. For you cannot win a war without weapons, and Mr Cameron chose to disarm years ago.
It’s an analysis which makes sense of what happened in the first leaders debate last week. Clegg provided the style and the substance, leaving Cameron looking as hollow as he actually is. With Cameron having failed even to unite the right wing in Britain, and the opinion polls showing the left lining up very quickly behind Clegg, it’s no wonder the Tories’ campaign has started to panic. Cameron has relied almost entirely on rebranding the party as ‘no-longer-nasty’, but now we’re in the run-up to the election he’s finding a) they really are nasty and won’t be denied and b) he needs policies which actually have traction with the large swathe of the country utterly disillusioned with New Labour. He doesn’t have them, and it’ll be interesting to see whether the next two debates can continue to demonstrate that.
You’re Nicked!
Some might say David Cameron is running scared of Nick Clegg. It sure seems he’s trying to impersonate him the whole time now. Flip flopping from the left to the far right and back again like this would have him floundering in an American election – is that on the cards in the next fortnight? In the meantime enjoy this hilarious game…
(via Dave Schneider)
Tories Start to Panic
The @Conservatives are panicking:
(twitpic by Chris Applegate)
A day after the Conservatives try to pitch right-wards with their new poster — LET’S CUT BENEFITS FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE WORK — some interesting statistics have emerged from the Government. With the unemployment figures out, the Tories are apparently excited by the reduction in unemployment by 43,000 between December and February to 2.5 million.
They are not making quite as much noise about the fact that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance fell by 32,900 in March to 1.54 million — “a much sharper fall than expected” according to the BBC.
It would be unfair to say that the lunatics have taken over the asylum at Tory HQ, but with the tone of the poster — and the “bollocks” briefings about ‘the big society’, someone, somewhere, has been empowered, and it appears that Cameron is allowing a right-ward shift in his rhetoric and tactics. As I was “saying” on Twitter last night, those who urge this are doing their party a disservice, as the reality is that if Cameron loses it will be not because he chanhed his party too much, but not enough.
They really lurch rightwards just when the economic statistics don’t justify it. They start demeaning Clegg in press conferences. The nasty sloganeering from 2005 has come back, even though it failed abysmally that year, when Clegg’s popularity continues to increase by presenting a solid, left-of-centre (enough) opposition. Cameron hasn’t remotely united the right wing – will it be his undoing in a fortnight?
