I have watched a little of the Conservative Conference. George Osborne did quite well, Theresa May did well under the circumstances (the Home Office brief is the toughest one at Conservative conferences, where most of the attendees will be satisfied with little less than the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment).
It seemed that each speaker had been ordered to use the words 'in the national interest' at least twice. Some said almost nothing else.
The problem with political parties espousing the national interest is that our traditional way of expressing it is through the ballot box and nobody voted for the coalition, for the simple reason it wasn't on the ballot paper.
The coalition's policies are concocted in the political classes' interests, and we shall see in due course if they conform with the national one.
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
05 October, 2010
29 April, 2010
Homosexuality in Politics
‘Don’t go there’ is what most people would say, but I am going to.
Philip Lardner, the Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, has been suspended, in the middle of the election campaign, for saying that homosexuality was ‘not normal behaviour’. In fact he wrote on his website ‘I will support the right of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is normal behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.’
Conservative Party policy is to give a tax break to ‘traditional marriage’, which will not include people who live together or homosexual couples so they must think it different, that is to say ‘not an equal lifestyle choice’, surely?
Here is Ian Dale, openly gay Conservative blogger: “He apparently thinks homosexuality isn't 'normal'. It is in fact quite normal. It's just not the 'norm'.”
Normal: Constituting, conforming to, not deviating or differing from, the common type or standard; regular, usual (OED)
Of course homosexuality isn’t normal. That doesn’t make it wrong, or undesirable or worthy of condemnation. It means it is ‘differing from the common type or standard’.
The Conservative Education policy encourages people to start their own schools. What would happen if I started a school which did not teach that homosexuality was normal behaviour – not taught the kiddies to discriminate, which would be illegal, but which simply did not teach that it was normal. In fact I was never taught that it was normal. I was never taught anything about it at all, which seems like a good idea for the modern school.
Of course it was an idiot thing to say in the middle of an election campaign and there is a case for suspending Mr Lardner on grounds of low IQ, but he seems to have been following Conservative policy, no more, no less.
So, what are we to make of all this?
Don’t ask me.
Philip Lardner, the Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, has been suspended, in the middle of the election campaign, for saying that homosexuality was ‘not normal behaviour’. In fact he wrote on his website ‘I will support the right of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is normal behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.’
Conservative Party policy is to give a tax break to ‘traditional marriage’, which will not include people who live together or homosexual couples so they must think it different, that is to say ‘not an equal lifestyle choice’, surely?
Here is Ian Dale, openly gay Conservative blogger: “He apparently thinks homosexuality isn't 'normal'. It is in fact quite normal. It's just not the 'norm'.”
Normal: Constituting, conforming to, not deviating or differing from, the common type or standard; regular, usual (OED)
Of course homosexuality isn’t normal. That doesn’t make it wrong, or undesirable or worthy of condemnation. It means it is ‘differing from the common type or standard’.
The Conservative Education policy encourages people to start their own schools. What would happen if I started a school which did not teach that homosexuality was normal behaviour – not taught the kiddies to discriminate, which would be illegal, but which simply did not teach that it was normal. In fact I was never taught that it was normal. I was never taught anything about it at all, which seems like a good idea for the modern school.
Of course it was an idiot thing to say in the middle of an election campaign and there is a case for suspending Mr Lardner on grounds of low IQ, but he seems to have been following Conservative policy, no more, no less.
So, what are we to make of all this?
Don’t ask me.
03 February, 2010
Cuts
I really don't know what is happening to the Tory Party. Cameron and Osborne seem to have lost their nerve and there doesn't seem to be anyone else they can allow out except on a lead.
Having been savaged by Lord Mandelson recently, Osborne yesterday made a speech on the economy almost completely without content. It turns out they have identified £1 billion of savings. They need to find £80 billion, and quickly.
The worst of it is they have accepted, or allowed to go unchallenged, Labour's dictum that you mustn't cut expenditure too quickly or you will ruin the recovery. This is nonsense. Firstly it will take a while to get the cuts through - the entire civil service will be resisting, not to mention all the quangos and lobby groups. Secondly it is not expenditure cuts which might dampen the recovery but a monetary contraction. So if you made £40 billion of cuts and felt the economy was still stuttering, you would just have to release the money back in some positive way, like cutting business taxes or national insurance, either of which would have a positive effect on employment.
But you have to make the cuts. Reducing the size of the State is a good thing, Mr Osborne. You're supposed to be a Conservative, remember?
Having been savaged by Lord Mandelson recently, Osborne yesterday made a speech on the economy almost completely without content. It turns out they have identified £1 billion of savings. They need to find £80 billion, and quickly.
The worst of it is they have accepted, or allowed to go unchallenged, Labour's dictum that you mustn't cut expenditure too quickly or you will ruin the recovery. This is nonsense. Firstly it will take a while to get the cuts through - the entire civil service will be resisting, not to mention all the quangos and lobby groups. Secondly it is not expenditure cuts which might dampen the recovery but a monetary contraction. So if you made £40 billion of cuts and felt the economy was still stuttering, you would just have to release the money back in some positive way, like cutting business taxes or national insurance, either of which would have a positive effect on employment.
But you have to make the cuts. Reducing the size of the State is a good thing, Mr Osborne. You're supposed to be a Conservative, remember?
08 October, 2009
Boy George
This from the excellent Matthew Parris who is covering the Conservative conference for the Times:
Anxious on Tuesday to establish the time of George Osborne’s speech expected towards the end of the morning, I approached a senior Conservative MP. “Osborne?” I said, “About 12?”
“Goodness me, no, dear boy. He’s at least 14.”
Anxious on Tuesday to establish the time of George Osborne’s speech expected towards the end of the morning, I approached a senior Conservative MP. “Osborne?” I said, “About 12?”
“Goodness me, no, dear boy. He’s at least 14.”
03 October, 2009
UK: The Conservatives and Europe
I have often had my differences with the Conservative Party, but the one major problem for me has always been its supineness over Europe. I was once a Conservative, culminating in being on the shortlist for the candidacy in a safe seat, but left and helped start UKIP because of John Major's acceptance of Maastricht.
Mr Cameron, when it became clear that the Labour Party had no intention of honouring its pledge to hold a referendum on the European Constitution, or Lisbon Treaty, said that the Conservatives would hold a referendum. This then changed to holding a referendum if Lisbon hadn't been ratified by the time of the election, and if it had they 'would not let matters rest' whatever that means. You see: supine.
The result of the Irish vote is due this afternoon and if the opinion polls are to be believed they will vote yes. It now seems less than likely, as Mary Ellen Synon thinks, that Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic can hold out. The Conservative Conference is about to start and Cameron and Hague cannot get through it without some open debate on Europe. If they stick to their original pledge to hold a referendum whatever, then the first year or so of Conservative rule will be smothered by the European issue (although this might be a good thing: if you want to take some unpopular decisions do it while the press are wittering on about something else). If they roll over should the Treaty be ratified they will look weak and unpopular to the Eurosceptics; Ukip came second in the European elections and has 13 MEPs.
One answer being mooted is that they accept Lisbon but pledge to repatriate some spheres of influence from Brussels. This could include the Working Time Directive, which makes a criminal of anyone trying to do the best for his family and work overtime.
Such a statement, and it would have to be a clear statement, would be good enough for me. I don't want the rescue of the economy to be overshadowed by the European issue, but this would be a clear statement that we are going to insist on a two speed (or multi-speed) Europe. So in the future we and other countries would have the option according to this precedent of opting into or out of any more nonsense like an upgraded European army, or repatriating a few more, like foreign policy.
Let's see what happens over the next few days. This is Mr Cameron's chance to show a bit of steel. He'll get my vote if he does.
Mr Cameron, when it became clear that the Labour Party had no intention of honouring its pledge to hold a referendum on the European Constitution, or Lisbon Treaty, said that the Conservatives would hold a referendum. This then changed to holding a referendum if Lisbon hadn't been ratified by the time of the election, and if it had they 'would not let matters rest' whatever that means. You see: supine.
The result of the Irish vote is due this afternoon and if the opinion polls are to be believed they will vote yes. It now seems less than likely, as Mary Ellen Synon thinks, that Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic can hold out. The Conservative Conference is about to start and Cameron and Hague cannot get through it without some open debate on Europe. If they stick to their original pledge to hold a referendum whatever, then the first year or so of Conservative rule will be smothered by the European issue (although this might be a good thing: if you want to take some unpopular decisions do it while the press are wittering on about something else). If they roll over should the Treaty be ratified they will look weak and unpopular to the Eurosceptics; Ukip came second in the European elections and has 13 MEPs.
One answer being mooted is that they accept Lisbon but pledge to repatriate some spheres of influence from Brussels. This could include the Working Time Directive, which makes a criminal of anyone trying to do the best for his family and work overtime.
Such a statement, and it would have to be a clear statement, would be good enough for me. I don't want the rescue of the economy to be overshadowed by the European issue, but this would be a clear statement that we are going to insist on a two speed (or multi-speed) Europe. So in the future we and other countries would have the option according to this precedent of opting into or out of any more nonsense like an upgraded European army, or repatriating a few more, like foreign policy.
Let's see what happens over the next few days. This is Mr Cameron's chance to show a bit of steel. He'll get my vote if he does.
23 January, 2009
Quote of the month
Apologies if you have already heard it. From Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary
"David Cameron's task is to turn the Conservative party from a party of Old Etonians and closet homosexuals into a party of homosexuals and closet Old Etonians."
"David Cameron's task is to turn the Conservative party from a party of Old Etonians and closet homosexuals into a party of homosexuals and closet Old Etonians."
13 January, 2009
Ken Clarke
A silly article by Andrew Porter in the Telegraph, a once decent paper which I fear is getting worse and worse. Porter says
'Both Mandelson ..... and Milburn were Europhiles. Brown kept Britain out of the single currency. If Brown can bite the bullet and embrace people he had such fundamental differences with then surely the Tories should decide that they can live with Clarke. They must accept they need some heavier hitters alongside Cameron.'
This is about collective cabinet responsibility. Labour's position on Europe is that we carry on accepting what's thrown at us, and as regards the single currency we go in when the time is right (but Brown decides when the time is right). A committed europhile such as Mandelson or Milburn would have no problem with this. The Conservative position, by contrast, is that we would never join the single currency and would, indeed, repatriate powers from Brussels. Is Clarke going to stand up and say he has changed his mind and now agrees with this? My guess is not.
So that means that the Conservative position has changed.
It's one or the other.
'Both Mandelson ..... and Milburn were Europhiles. Brown kept Britain out of the single currency. If Brown can bite the bullet and embrace people he had such fundamental differences with then surely the Tories should decide that they can live with Clarke. They must accept they need some heavier hitters alongside Cameron.'
This is about collective cabinet responsibility. Labour's position on Europe is that we carry on accepting what's thrown at us, and as regards the single currency we go in when the time is right (but Brown decides when the time is right). A committed europhile such as Mandelson or Milburn would have no problem with this. The Conservative position, by contrast, is that we would never join the single currency and would, indeed, repatriate powers from Brussels. Is Clarke going to stand up and say he has changed his mind and now agrees with this? My guess is not.
So that means that the Conservative position has changed.
It's one or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)