DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

Prime Minister David Cameron will reportedly back an independent review which could recommend that expressions of affection between gay couples be restricted to after-9pm.

Editors would do well to get Russell T Davies, Jonathan Harvey, Sarah Waters and Shaun Duggan (writer of Brookie lesbo kiss script) on the attack.

just to temporarily think the best of him for a moment, even only in terms of his capacity for political calculation: i can't imagine he would support something so obviously symbolically negative, for such minimal reward. i don't know that LGBT issues have really come up much so far ..?, this government (totally open to being corrected here, maybe i was distracted)?, but through the campaign there were a lot of instances of DC trying awkwardly & failingly to shrug off accusations of being anti-gay, through shaky & shitty interviews (maybe with attitude, i forget).

You're maybe thinking of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/24/david-cameron-stumbles-gay-rights

Don't understand what you're trying to say there. Seems to me Cameron is hyper-sensitive, to the point of neurosis, about two things: being seen as posh/privileged and being seen to be an old-fashioned "nasty" Tory. (xp)

yeah, that's right. and so supporting a bill which would make a pretty minor change to the landscape of the country but loudly signify HIDE IT AWAY GAYS would not be the kind of thing he would be into.

ps thx onimo that's right. think the guy actively & ridiculously denies voting to re-up clause 28 within the past ten years.

He can't help himself sometimes tho, the mask slips

i need schooling w/this, & i was trying to think of what broadly 'social' issues the coalition has raised so far, and kind of blanking. most of the things that would have a targeted social effect have been raised as ostensibly economical measures, ie disability support and community services. but have they done much else? there's the (positive) re-jig of maternity/paternity leave, and the (terrible) marriage allowance thing. what else is there?

suicide counselling for dole offices

and Cameron doing the odd "send the buggers back" speech in code

I wonder if Clegg's comment about voters in the North remembering Thatcher got under Cameron's skin, I saw him interviewed yesterday and he was going on about how he had changed the Conservative Party and it wasn't the same blah blah blah, haven't heard him use that spiel since they won the election I think. Having said that, the Tories, nasty or not, aren't exactly losing support.

He can't help himself sometimes tho, the mask slips

yeah i don't know, i just don't get this - like that it's something he's obviously sensitive about makes me feel like he isn't going to just drift into it. that doing so would align him with various gross aspects of conservative history makes it seem weird.
xxxp

Pretty sure this story is bullshit "I am down with the gays and black people" is basially the be-all-and-end-all of Cameron's so-called social liberalism and it's too precious to his own image to throw it away for no reason. The only reason he'd do it would be as a sop to the Tory Right (yeah I know) and given local election results he shouldn't need to do that right now. It's more likely that the Sun is in the early stages of getting a bandwagon rolling here.

But yeah that comment of Clegg's visibly annoyed Cameron. If the two of them don't fucking hate each other now they will soon.

Think Dave's been sleeping on the couch since last Friday.

i need schooling w/this, & i was trying to think of what broadly 'social' issues the coalition has raised so far, and kind of blanking. most of the things that would have a targeted social effect have been raised as ostensibly economical measures, ie disability support and community services. but have they done much else? there's the (positive) re-jig of maternity/paternity leave, and the (terrible) marriage allowance thing. what else is there?

― sensual bathtub (group: 698) (schlump), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:19 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Nadine Dorries.

"I am down with the gays and black people" is basially the be-all-and-end-all of Cameron's so-called social liberalism

Esp. if the gays are millionaires who claim rent to pay to their partner, you know, "honourable" men like that

ding, thank you, it is flooding back now

xp

I really don't understand how the Tories did so well at the council elections. I mean, I know theoretically council elections are nothing to do with national politics (but what percentage of voters could tell you any non-party-line stance of the local candidates?), and I understand that LD support has disintegrated and turnout wasn't great so it was inevitable that the Tories would do better %-wise and win a lot of councils, but at least locally their overall numbers are up too.

Just feel really baffled by the rest of the population. Not for the first time. The idea that anyone wd go "I didn't vote for them last time but I like the way they're going" or "I voted for the Lib Dems and am very disappointed in them for actually being Tories, so I'll vote for some real Tories" is confusing.

Not expecting any response to this post except "lol naive".

The Tories are delivering exactly what Tory voters want. I'm baffled that people are baffled by the strength of their support.

Well I thought those people would've voted Tory last year and last council election no matter what, but I suppose you're right that some of them stayed at home or voted UKIP in case Dave was a bit too cuddly and progressive and are now delighted with him.

Still depressing obv.

I've seen a few articles on the BAN THE TV GAYS issue and none of them have cited anything on that specific thing but have cited a general tightening up on the broadcast of excessively suggestive and sexual material stuff. h8 defending Cam'ron in any way but I'm suspicious.

Well, imagine this: Cameron being perfectly OK wrt gay people, personally.

But, he has to sop to his Right-wingers, so has some sort of 'errm, OK' reaction to "limiting gay people on TV before 9:00" inasmuch as "well at least it's not Clause 28"...

(Peronsally, I'd just like some half-decent TV before 9:00 plz.)

PeronSally? I just modified that from Persally...

As I said upthread, he doesn't actually need a sop to the right-wing of his party, because he's in a reasonably strong position after the local elections.

Anyway: So it's perfectly OK to call each other Caah and beat them up and that, and do drugs on TV, but not for two women to kiss each other?

(And before you ask, no I'm not going Wooo Lesbos, but there seems to be no actual blokes kissing since Michael Cashman left Eastenders, but then I wouldn't know I never watch the soaps anymore.)

Basically, since all the soaps are on before the watershed - and are the most mainstream narratives in British telly, with the highest audiences - he'd effectively be saying no more homosnogs on soaps ever again, which ain't gonna fly with the people who write them IMO.

there seems to be no actual blokes kissing since Michael Cashman left Eastenders, but then I wouldn't know I never watch the soaps anymore

I watch soaps very infrequently but can tell you this is untrue

fair enough.

The Tories are delivering exactly what Tory voters want. I'm baffled that people are baffled by the strength of their support.

ehh, i don't know; i'm baffled, and i think it's the idea that people who voted tory aren't necessarily down the line small-staters so much as they are people who were tired of labour and gordon brown, who wanted an alternative, or are people for whom the idea of spending cuts and a small state will become less appealing to once they lose their jobs. i assume once the cuts bite the tories will lose support on this basis.

the thing that bums me out about no-smooching-in-soaps is that they're a useful medium for normatising (not that it needs normatising &c &c) and reflecting these things.

xp, yeah, the fact that government does not have the power over HE to do the things the article says "could happen" seems like something they might have mentioned, alongside the two quotes they got, i.e. the month-old one from cable saying it would be a bad idea, and the new one from willits quote saying he thinks charities should be able to sponsor students.

― caek, Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:02 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

glad to see the guardian followed this up with

"Willetts forced on to back foot over premium rate university places
Universities minister issues statement to clarify intentions as critics say proposal [that didn't exist] to let rich students pay premium fees to get places at top universities will 'entrench privilege'"

still, it was the most read story on the website for 24 hours, so congrats to the education section of the guardian newspaper.

Think most Tory voters (rather than hardcore Tories) want tax cuts and economic growth more than a small state per se, although they might view a smaller state as a means to that end.

There is also that lazy-thinker Mail reader attitude to those on benefits; a lot of self-righteous people think THEY work hard and nobody else pulls their weight.

And Willetts is the one with the two brains. xp.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361130

^^^ Love it when the Tories start talking about "supporting job creation" by making it easier to sack people.

Despair at the consistent portrayal of the CBI, IoD, etc as disinterested parties in these economic debates, vs evil selfish self-interested unions and workers.

How many people in the uk are actually employers/business owners? I mean, there can't be many people who read this and think "thank fuck for that". (naivety on my part I'm sure)

How many people in the uk are actually employers/business owners?

Depends on how you're counting but it's comfortably in the millions (obv not all business owners actually employ people). Would be a big jump to suggest they all agree with the govt/CBI.

I mean the core issue here really is separating "is this damaging to job creation?" from "are the Tories pretending it's damaging to job creation because it suits their agenda?"

The core issue is also "what kind of jobs do they want to create?" and the answer is "low paid, de-unionized jobs with the minimum possible employee rights".

"Job creation" was the excuse they trotted out to oppose the minimum wage, which makes it pretty clear tbh.

The core issue is also "what kind of jobs do they want to create?" and the answer is "low paid, de-unionized jobs with the minimum possible employee rights".

That was sort of covered in my second question but yes exactly.

So sick of those guys

kinda want to know who all these people are who have the money to pursue baseless industrial tribunal claims for shits and giggles

i think it's the idea that people who voted tory aren't necessarily down the line small-staters so much as they are people who were tired of labour and gordon brown

Never forget they still couldn't win an overall majority, they actually fucked up that General Election, should have been a cakewalk for them

The Prime Minister's Programme message

It’s a huge privilege to be here alongside the Guest of Honour, Corporal Mark Ward of the Mercian Regiment. Mark recently won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan, where his inspirational leadership and bravery saved the lives of his men when they were ambushed by insurgents and pinned down by enemy fire.

I know we will all want to show him our appreciation, not just for his own achievements, but as a sign of the gratitude we feel towards all our brave servicemen and women who make such immense sacrifices for our safety. This is my first FA Cup Final and I’m really excited. It is Stoke City’s first Final too and I would like to congratulate them on their historic achievement. I’d also like to congratulate Manchester City on reaching their ninth Final, even though they knocked out my team, Aston Villa! There is something truly special about The FA Cup.

No other competition has quite the same history. No other competition offers quite the same drama, with its David against Goliath draws and its legendary giant-killings. And, perhaps above all, no other competition has such a magical Cup Final here each year at Wembley, the home of football.

From local parks and schools to football clubs across the land, the dream of The Cup Final has helped to inspire a fantastic legacy of grassroots football in this country. But it’s only possible because of the tireless work done by the 400,000 volunteers who give up their time each year to support football in our communities. And it’s right that The Cup Final should recognise these people. These volunteers are absolutely vital to raising the standard of our game at all levels. They find and coach many of the young people who will be the England stars of tomorrow. They help change lives.

Through football in our communities we can re-engage young people in our country who are going through hard times. Football offers them the hope and confidence they need to make something of their lives. That’s one of the reasons why the staff at 10 Downing Street have chosen to volunteer with Street League, a charity partner of The FA that helps young adults who are out of work to get back into employment or training. If you are interested in finding out more about Street League I’d encourage you to check out their website at www.streetleague.co.uk.

The FA Cup is a brilliant advert for English football and a tremendous source of pride for our whole country. I am sure that today Manchester City and Stoke City will write another memorable chapter in the history of the oldest and greatest domestic club football tournament in the world.

Enjoy the game!
The Rt. Hon David Cameron MP, Prime Minister

even though they knocked out my team, Aston Villa

Uh... what?

There's a weird thing with posh gits and Aston Villa.

... and then there's Nigel Kennedy, what have Villa done to deserve this?

The FA Cup is a brilliant advert for English football

...apart from the year when Cardiff won it of course.