The Secret Tories

In the past the Conservative Party was known as the "nasty party", a fact acknowleged by the present Home secretary, Theresa May, among others.

With his talk of "National Wellbeing" and the soggy idea of "The Big Society", David Cameron has gained a lot of kudos for supposedly "de-toxifying" the Conservative Party's image. But it seems that the party's image resists detoxification, Mr Cameron has an ongoing battle and it hasn't actually been won yet.

Last week I pointed out that Lord Young had been sacked when he said that this was a "so-called" recession and that most people "never had it so good". Lord Young was sacked, not for what he said, but because he spoke a truth that many Tories feel in their bones and that David Cameron doesn't want you to hear.

Today, someone called Howard Flight, (who has apparently been a Tory MP and a Conservative Party Vice Chair, not that I had heard of him, but so what? and has now been made a peer by David Cameron), has said that government policy is encouraging the poor to breed too much. Again, Mr Flight is only saying what many Tories say in their own company, in their clubs and in private conversations. His crime is to say it in public and with a recording device in close proximity.

Mr Flight has previous. He was sacked as a Parliamentary candidate in 2005, but it seems that he is still held in high enough regard by David Cameron to be appointed to the House of Lords on the Tory ticket.

In my experience his opinions (and similar neandethal nonsense) are not uncommon among Tory supporters and representatives. David Cameron has tried to change (or more accurately disguise) that fact, but it seems that changing the "image" is a far cry from changing the reality of the nasty party.

That's the Tories secret..... 

The Nasty Party is Only Hiding.....

David Cameron is in the Guardian claiming that the Conservatives, under Boris Johnson, introduced the Living Wage in London. 

The one progressive new idea we hear will be in Labour's manifesto – the living wage – is actually a Conservative policy: Boris Johnson has already introduced it in London.

Ken Livingston actually introduced the Living Wage, over Tory opposition. But when Ken dares to point this out on CiF, the nasty Tory poisonous invective flows hot and free.

The Tories apparently think they have had a good few days at the start of the election campaign and already they are becoming insufferable. The Nasty Party is being reborn before our eyes.

Dave may be applying the airbrush with all his might, but the cretins on the Guardian threads are more representative of the real Tory psychology.  Heaven help us if this lot ever get anywhere near the levers of power ....

Extracting Gay Teeth....

Chris Grayling has bungled his way into another elephant trap, with reports of a taped conversation with some "think tank" employees in which he says that he sympathises with the owners of a B+B who refused to let gay people stay in their establishment.

The case being put about out in part is that, as a B+B is run from somebody's home, they should be allowed to keep out people they don't like. But the law says they cannot discriminate on sexual orientation, so Grayling's position is strictly speaking, unlawful. Anyway, they are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of race or colour, so why allow it on the grounds of sexual orientation? And, BTW, my dentist runs his practice from a basement in his home: should he be allowed to refuse the extraction of gay teeth...? Of course not: the law is the law, and should apply to everyone.

Another leg of Grayling's position is that the B+B owners were "religious", and gay people offend their "religious" sensibilities. But the law is the law, and Chris Grayling is the Shadow Home Secretary: he hopes that he will get re-elected, that there will be a Tory government and he will then be Home Secretary for real.  So his beliefs and attitudes matter.

Grayling's beliefs are also an indication of how far David Cameron has been successful in transforming his party from the "nasty" (racist, homophobic, misogynistic, elitist, toff riden) party to the "nice" (gay friendly etc...) party. And Mr Cameron has not taken his party very far, if Grayling's private opinions are to be taken as any guide.

If the Home Secretary said that he/she was against equal rights for all before the law, they would be forced to resign. It would make little difference if these views were expressed in private. Chris Grayling has done worse than that: he has expressed one view in private, and another in public, and the view he has expressed in private (which we assume is his actually held view) is that he is against equal rights for all before the law.

His position is fatally compromised. He is unfit to be Home Secretary. He should go quickly, to do less damage to his party.

The Real Question for Cameron

Just watched David Cameron meets undecided voters on the Politics Show.

It was interesting. Cameron was good, smooth and pausible, but he could not/did not answer at least half of the questions, preferring a "wait-and-see-we'll-tell-you-during-the-campaign", approach.

The transcript can be found at PoliticsHome

The most interesting question which I think could be asked of Cameron, but which no-one seems to want to ask is this: if he is so much in favour of social progressiveness and government intervention and green issues and relieving poverty and touchy-feely-we-feel-your-pain, why did David Cameron join the Thatcher Tory Party, which believed the exact opposite of all these things, in the first place?

Was he a nasty youth who is now a nice adult? Or is he still a nasty adult, but understands that he won't get elected if he admits it?