Anyone out there describe themselves as right-wing?

Yesterday we reported Menzies Campbell's new attack on the Tories.  In a bid to damn us he said that we are "still right-wing and unpleasant".  He didn't say that we were nasty and unpleasant or selfish and unpleasant or racist and unpleasant... the LibDem leader chose "right-wing" as a catch-all term of abuse.

Ming is not the only one who appears to understand that the right-wing label is a pejorative one.  On last night's Any Questions? (for which Eddie Mair made an excellent stand-in chair(man)) Steve Norris said that, on civil liberties and the environment, Tony Blair was far to the right of him - again as if being 'to the right' was somehow unpleasant.  David Cameron recently made it clear that he didn't like the expression very much:

"Some say that we should move to the right. I say that will turn us into a fringe party, never able to challenge for government again. I don't want to let that happen to this party - do you?"

On a recent blog for the Social Affairs Unit, Harry Phibbs wonders if the term 'right wing' is beyond rescue:

"Describing such ideas as supporting parliamentary sovereignty, or the rule of law, or greater individual freedom, or a smaller state, as right wing tends to put people off. Of course Tory policy is up for review so at the moment the changes are about tone and emphasis. We have had this presented as a change of policy. But it is not. The Conservatives were never in favour of poverty or pollution. But if people thought that they were and no longer believe them to be than that is an advance. If part of that process is resisting the description "right wing" then why not?"

The whole right-left thing is increasingly out-of-date when today's issues of centralism versus localism, social conservatism versus liberalism and pre-emption versus multilateralism are causing serious divisions within political parties.  Nonetheless, given that Tory MPs are seen as ten times more right-wing than Tony Blair, the unattractiveness of the right-wing label could be something of a problem.

Comments

[Richard Shackleton]

At the risk of being labelled a pedant but doesn't your picture above show a left wing??

[Edward]

I think it's unattractive to be seen as either wing to be honest. Like it or not there is a definite current perception that being seen to be at all dogmatic on issues doesn't fit with "post-modern" Britain. It cross-issue political alignment which seems to be problematical.

[Edward]

*It is

[Sam Coates]

I reckon it's a right wing Richard, the plumes go against the direction of travel.

I heard that debate, thought Steve Norris was good on the whole.

[Chris Palmer]

I describe myself as right wing. If that makes me unpleasant, do I care? No (one because it's not true... ok, maybe it is a little bit, but that's not the point.)

All in all, it's far better than being a Left wierdy beardy. Interestingly enough, those on the Left who shrank away from the immediate limelight after the collapse of the Berlin wall and Communism have had to hide behind New Labour "moderation" to be electable.

[Chad]

It is just confusing really and meaningless really, but as you note, widely perceived as a "bad thing". No surprise that the BBC prominently links to the Ming story under the title "Conservatives 'still right wing'"

I'm an internationalist and support eu withdrawal as this hinders nation-state international cooperation which makes me a leftie and rightie at the same time.

I support the rich paying a higher proportion in tax than the poor but also want small-government lower tax bills for all. Again, making me leftie and rightie at the same time.

I think overall I'm slightly centre-left, but it's much better to focus on values, principles and policies rather than misleading labels as it would be a real shame if someone didn't even both to try to understand a party (whichever one) based on labels attributed to it.

I do wonder though if anyone but politicos really care about political spectrum definitions.

[Mark Fulford]

It is, quite clearly, a left wing!

[Editor]

The wing is pointing right anyhow!

[Chad]

The wing is pointing right anyhow!
Not from the bird's perspective, it isn't.. :-)

[Frank Young]

When Tony Blair took over the Labour party and was trying to win his first election victory he would only describe himself as "centre".

This debate might have as much to do with the ideology (or "wing") that a reforming leader is trying to distance himself from as much as the inherent unpopularity of that ideology.

[Frank]

The whole point of politics is to make your views appear to be the national concensus. You cannot do it by apologising for being a conservative. It is perfectly possible to believe that some people need looking after, that the Govt should build social housing and that environmental protection is vital and at the same time take action against virtually unlimited immigration, support the family and encourage respect for authority in schools and public, let alone cut taxes to stimulate individual initiative and responsibility.
What is so depressing is DC's production of a Tory version of "The Deep"-dredging up all the failed old Tory codgers of the past. We need to move on.

[Frank Young]

Someone else masquerading as "Frank"!!

Clearly where we don't differ in name we do so in politics!

It's not at all helpful to describe oneself as either "left" or "right" wing because the swing voter will see themselves as "somewhere in the middle". It's telling how often politicians describe themselves with cute phrases like "right of centre" or "centre right".

Incidentally that poll which shows how far from the political centre the electorate see the parties is absolutely crucial. I'd be grateful if the Editor could feature commentary on that poll as much as the voting intentions one. It tells us something about how sympathetic the voters are to our party and the likelihood they will be receptive to our representations.

[Giffin Lorimer]

It's odd that we have such a left-wing government but can't oppose it from the right. Perhaps that's because right-wing now refers to strict economic and social policies rather than attitude or philosophy.

Brown has been very careful to dress up his policies in right-wing language of fiscal responsibility and probity while doing the exact opposite. It's one reason why he's been so hard to beat - people are just not interested in discussions about how many PSBR's can dance on the head of a pin.

Meanwhile Blair has been equally hard to touch - you can't pin the label of Stalinist on his domestic policies while his own party condemns him for pursuing right-wing economic and social policies.

[Paul Kennedy]

Centre Right, sometimes a little more right than centre, and proud of it. But what is more important, I care about our country, all of its people and our institutions and freedoms ( those that the Labour charlatans haven't removed).

Anyway had a 10 minute break, got to get back out canvassing/leaflet delivering, it's going well.

"Appleton has 3 Council seats, on May 4th make 1 Conservative"

[Will James]

A quite interesting approach is taken by the people running the Political Compass website, where they examine your political persuasion according to: a) Economics (Left/Right) and Social Authoritarian/Libertarian). They explain that Left/Right definitions are too simplistic. Try the test, see where you come out.

[Sam Coates]

Good luck Paul.

Can I put an end to this wing debate.. it is a right wing!

The camera isn't necessarily in line with the bird, and the wing isn't necessarily flat. It's plumage runs from top to bottom suggesting that the direction of travel is 'north' of the picture.

Compare it to a picture of an eagle if you lot still need convincing ;)

I was an active member of the Young Ornithologists Club in primary school, I'll have you know!

[Andy Stidwill]

Describing someone as right-wing certainly shouldn't be a term of abuse, but unfortunatley we've allowed it to become so, in the same way that the word liberal has become a term of abuse in the United States.

Our opponents use the term right-wing as a term of abuse because they've managed to convince a fair proportion of the public to think of the typical right-winger as being a blustering, Colonel Blimp type figure, who sits in his house in the home counties behind the net curtains fuming at things like multiculturalism, etc. We've got to bring that kind of association to an end.

[Sam Coates]

I've always preferred adding an authoritarian/libertarian axis to the left/right one too. It's useful to just use left/right as an economic scale. The PoliticalCompass website did start this I believe, although there are always limitations with rigid question and answer tests.

[Margaret]

The centre ground is overcrowded, that is why the man in the street cannot tell the difference between the Lib/Lab/Con and why he will vote for Blair. Why vote for a clone when he can have the real thing. We need some clear blue water from the other two if we are ever going to form a Government.

Cameron and his gang are part of the liberal/elite that is why true conservatives are fed up. It is a pity the Conservative Party didn't split at the time of Maastricht, we wouldn't be having all these problems now if they had.

[James Maskell]

I am a right winger and I see a left wing in the picture (that being from the birds perspective). Its petantic though.

[S Penketh]

Rightwing and proud. I'm not nasty, racist or whatever else the old chap wants to label me as. If he has nothing else to go on to call the Tories so much the better for us.

[Mark O'Brien]

'Right-wing' does carry more negative connotations usually for many people. At the same time, my 'right-wing' might be completely different to another man's 'right-wing'. My 'right-wing' is economic liberalism, capitalism and libertarianism. Another version of 'right-wing' is authoritarian and paternalist.

The dubious nature today of what left means and what right means, and how the terms are out of date, is certainly not the only reason, but it's a pretty convincing reason why we'd be best to not worry about how to describe ourselves or worry about what a man like Ming Campbell calls us, and simply let the people decide for themselves.

We'll be stronger in the end for refusing to worry ourselves with questions of names and descriptions but rather going out and making our case to the average man who couldn't care less if you're right, left, north, south, fat or thin, just as long as he's got a job to go to.

[James Maskell]

In fact it needs mentioning that in my case I started off thinking I was Thatcherite (would be about 2001-2), without really knowing what it meant, then as I became more aware (2003-5) thought I was more liberal conservative but in more recent times (since the general election) Ive certainly become more right wing as Ive really started thinking about my political views. Camerons election has made that even more so. In fact this site has been a major contributing factor to my being aware of my politcal views. I wouldnt call myself unpleasant though. Im actually rather popular in the nearby area.

[Mark O'Brien]

Note too how Steve Norris says Blair is to the right on civil liberties... therefore logically speaking, identity cards are a right-wing idea. Personally, that's not my kind of right-wing, and I'm always angered when I see erosion of civil liberties described as anything other than left-wing, for it's a fundamentally socialist concept to take away the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and that includes turning us all into sets of data by giving us ID cards.

[Rob Largan]

Have always thought of myself as right wing, always will. I dont see how believing in small government; lower taxes; individual freedom and responsibility and the rule of law is anything to be ashamed of. Just because I dont think the way to solve social problems is to through money at them, doesnt mean I dont think they need to be solved.

What angers me is when people describe being racist or xenophobic as something that is 'right wing'. When National Socialism is somehow described as 'right wing'. When nothing is further from the truth.

[G-MaN]

Yep, this sort of obvious left wing propagamda really does my nut! We are right-wing (centre-right, whatever) and there nothing wrong with that. In fact many of our fundemental beliefs are populour beliefs amosnt the majority of British people.

But the Left has managed to actually degrade the term right-wing and conservative since the early 90's. The way the talk down about us and calling us right-wing has become an insult, and it just is not one.

This is the partys biggest problem if u ask me. We need to be championing righ-wing intellectualism , starting by attacking Mingus for saying what he said!

[Paul Kennedy]

"Good luck Paul." Sam C

Thanks Sam, as you are probably aware it is a 1700 Lib Dem majority to overturn (8207 registered voters, with approx 55% turnout in 2004), but this time we are really pushing hard and have got leaflets! UKIP aren't standing this time, they had 524 votes in 2004 and Labour are putting up a "paper candidate" and normally get 200 votes.

PS Just in case people are worried I'm skiving, I've just stopped for lunch!

[Derek]

This discussion demonstrates how different people view the same terms in quite different ways, making them very misleading. Far better to set out one's views on each issue, than to try to define oneself by means of a single word or phrase. Communism and Fascism were supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, though they shared a number of similar policies. Even within one mainstream political party such as the Conservatives we have a whole range of views on a number of key issues. That's in spite of the fact that all three main parties agree on many issues, and claim to be on the centre ground.

All parties and individual politicians should be judged only on their clear policy commitments not on mere positioning. statements

[TC]

When most people use the term 'right-wing', they mean it to be derogatory. They are generally referring to a particular type of conservative - one who is economically and socially conservative.

As I see it there are four varieties of conservative:

1) economically conservative and socially liberal (classical liberalism or libertarianism)

2) economically conservative and socially conservative (probably the truest use of 'conservative')

3) economically centrist and socially authoritarian (compassionate conservative?)

4) economically centrist and socially liberal (eg. Soho modernisers like Portillo)

I'd be interested to know what proportion of the users of this website fall into each category. Perhaps Editor, it would make an interesting question for the members' survey. Personally, I'm in category 1.

[John Hustings]

What I've noticed is that most people haven't a clue what "right-wing" means. They just think of right-wing as being authoritarian. Anyone who comes across as authoritarian people describe as "right-wing" (Blunkett, for example).

It doesn't occur to them that there's a fine tradition of left-wing politics which is extremely controlling and authoritarian.

The fact that "right-wing" is a pejorative term is largely due to the fact that we have a biased media, people don't understand the terms, and, most important of all, very few us actually bother to defend the term.

Let's face it, most "conservatives" will probably try to deny being right-wing. They will say what they believe and say something like, "how's that right wing?", or "if that's right-wing then fine, maybe I am". i.e. they are apologetic.

To rescue the label "right-wing" we need to both define and defend it. I don't see many volunteering to do that.

[Voice from the South West]

Well I've always described my self as right-wing and I'm very proud of the political views I hold. I see nothing to be ashamed about wanting a smaller state, lower taxation and believing in economic neo-liberalism. Neither am I ashamed, nor make any apologies, for holding what some would consider to be socially conservative views too.

After witnessing the antics of the left-wingers at my university, I think Ming's description of "unpleasant" could apply, if not on them personally, on their views and actions at the very least.

[John Hustings]

"What angers me is when people describe being racist or xenophobic as something that is 'right wing'. When National Socialism is somehow described as 'right wing'. When nothing is further from the truth."

Exactly. It's always worth reminding people of the "socialism" included in National Socialism. Norman Tebbit often makes this point, that Hitler was left-wing not right-wing.

[Rob Largan]

"Communism and Fascism were supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, though they shared a number of similar policies."

Dont get me started on that. Communism, Fascism, Socialism and National Socialism are all different breeds of collectivism. They are all on the far left of the political spectrum. Anyone who says that Hitler was a right winger should go and read The Road To Serfdom.

[John Hustings]

"When most people use the term 'right-wing', they mean it to be derogatory. They are generally referring to a particular type of conservative - one who is economically and socially conservative."

I believe that a small state will lead naturally towards social conservativism on a local scale, because I believe that people are naturally socially conservative.

But I also believe that because of the ravages of 50 years of welfare culture, civic society needs help in being rebuilt. This is a form of social conservativism.

I also believe that free markets and social conservativism can work well hand in hand. Free markets can be used to empower people, especially the worst off. That's one of major reasons I am a free-marketer: because I believe it helps the poor better than socialism can. But helping marriage to thrive does the exact same thing. Both economical liberalism and social conservativism can be directed towards the same ends.

The fact that marriage has become an almost taboo subject for this Party (over a very long time) is very sad because the benefits of stable marriage are virtually undeniable. I am a rationalist and an evidentialist. I favour whatever the evidence demonstrates to work. It is dogmatic not to help marriage given all the evidence showing its beneficial effects.

I don't think the public find the "socially liberal" conservatives they see in the media any more attractive (indeed, I believe they are regarded rather in the same way as a "trendy vicar", with ridicule). I don't see any evidence that Portillo, Norris et al. are more popular.

It is also to be remembered that the public tend to have much more socially conservative views than is usually accredited to them, and they see the truth in those views. It is the media that dislikes social conservatives for entirely snobbish reasons.

Social Conservativism needs to be defended if the reputation of "right-wing" and this party is to be properly restored. The more we abandon it and ridicule it ourselves, the worse it gets. Moreover, I see nothing indefensible in favouring strong, self-reliant communities.

[TC]

What social liberals would object to is not social conservatism itself, but rather its overt promotion by government. If small government leads to social conservatism on a local scale since people are naturally socially conservative then so be it. Government has got out of the way and allowed people to make their own choices - the essence of social liberalism.

What the Conservative Party must avoid at all costs is the appearance of moral authoritarianism. People do not want to be told how to live their lives, and they do not want to be transported back to the 1950s. I believe it would a very sad thing indeed if British politics were infected by the same puritanism that's taken hold in the States.

[True Blue]

Try policticalcompass.org for a bit of fun. It adds an extra axis to the debate.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I agree entirely with TC's post above. Good stuff.

[John Hustings]

"Government has got out of the way and allowed people to make their own choices - the essence of social liberalism."

But social liberals would probably portray the incentivising of marriage as interference or moral puritanism. This is of course nonsense, but social liberals always argue against straw mans, as you yourself have done with your 1950s reference. I don't even know what that means. I think there are very many things that ordinary people *would* like to return to from 1950s Britain, for example seeing more bobbies on the beat, feeling safe in one's neighbourhood, and a sense of civic pride.

There are plenty of ways in which Britain has deteriorated sense the 1950s, and we should think about ways of restoring what we've lost. This doesn't necessarily involve top down approaches (although in the case of marriage, it must).

[John Hustings]

Oh and social liberals have an authoritarian tendency of their own, especially imposing their own worldview on others, and using central and local government to do so. I fail to see why it is acceptable to use state funding to promote one worldview but absolutely unacceptable to promote a worldview we *know* to be in the interests of society.

Bizarre.

[James Maskell]

One thing I learnt when doing A Level history was the horseshoe political spectrum. One misconception is that the spectrum stops at a semi circle, when in fact the extreme sides are closer than people assume. So in fact its more like a horseshoe than a semi circle.

[TC]

John - what you say is true of some people who describe themselves as social liberals. But I think a true social liberal would argue that state funding should not be used to promote any particular 'worldview', but rather to provide a framework within which people can pursue their own worldviews.

As far as incentivising marriage goes, I would not characterize it as moral puritanism nor do I think most social liberals would. A conservative government should remove the perverse incentives against marriage, and should support families. However, to talk of 'incentivising' is peculiar - I doubt tax considerations play any major part in people's decision to marry, to have children or to seperate. As a social liberal I would suggest it is possible to support beneficial institutions without promoting one type of relationship at the (potential) cost of stigmatising another.

Finally, on the 1950s point, I appreciate that there are aspects of 1950s Britain that many people would like to see return. What I was warning against was being seen as reactionaries, blaming everything on modern culture. For example, neighbourhood policing would be a good solution to the difficulties of modern law enforcement. Far better to present it as such rather than say 'we had neighbourhood policing in the 1950s, and weren't we all much better off back then.'

[Richard]

I'm right-wing and not ashamed of it.

Just to confuse things further, here's an alternative view (that I disagree with but is interesting nevertheless):

http://www.mises.org/story/910

[TC]

Just to make sure my point is now clear - there are good things about the 1950s that we could profitably revive. But we do not have to return to the society of the 1950s to do it, any more than we would need to become just like Sweden to benefit from a voucher scheme in education.

[matt wright]

The left/right label has become utterly meaningless nowadays. By continuing to think in such terms we close our minds to new ideas. For example traditionally advocating national service would be seen as right wing but many people from differing political backgrounds support the notion of some form of modern national service. I wish Cameron would put meat on the bone about his ideas along these lines,

Matt

[John Hustings]

"what you say is true of some people who describe themselves as social liberals. But I think a true social liberal would argue that state funding should not be used to promote any particular 'worldview', but rather to provide a framework within which people can pursue their own worldviews."

2 points -

Firstly, what I say is true of *most* of those who describe themselves as social liberals. Would you wish to prevent state-funded gay pride marches? Would you wish to prevent the state funding of gay history month?

I doubt it. Those who *would* oppose the active promotion of homosexuality would instantly be lambasted as authortarians and reactionaries.

And secondly, part of my small state conservative views involves the belief that the state cannot be morally neutral (or benign). Social liberals don't seem to understand this. They think that "secularism", for example, is neutral. It is not. Neither is there a "neutral" position on abortion, on euthanasia or on gay marriage. The state will have a say on these matters, but it is biased either way. There isn't one side which is authoritarian and one side liberal. *Both* involve imposing views.

"However, to talk of 'incentivising' is peculiar - I doubt tax considerations play any major part in people's decision to marry, to have children or to seperate."

No, but it makes a difference on the margins and it has a long term effect on the culture. If incentives to marriage had no effect, why is it that in countries where there *are* incentives to marry, marriage increases, and where those incentives are removed, marriage decreases? I am not saying it has a direct effect on people's decisions, but it certainly will have a wider influence.

"As a social liberal I would suggest it is possible to support beneficial institutions without promoting one type of relationship at the (potential) cost of stigmatising another."

"Stigma" isn't something the state *does*. It is something local communities do. And it is a *wholly* natural, and often good, thing. When we talk about *removing* stigmas, it is *then* that we are being authoritarian and interfering.

Stigmas are necessary in culture. They shouldn't state-imposed, perhaps (but I'm not proposing that). But they are necessary all the same.

"Finally, on the 1950s point, I appreciate that there are aspects of 1950s Britain that many people would like to see return. What I was warning against was being seen as reactionaries, blaming everything on modern culture."

I don't see how it can be "progressive" to not learn where our predecessors got things right. If our predecessors managed to do things that we dismally fail to achieve, then we can learn lessons from them. This isn't "reactionary" unless you believe everything about the past was bad. This is an irrational view!

[Sean Fear]

"Firstly, what I say is true of *most* of those who describe themselves as social liberals. Would you wish to prevent state-funded gay pride marches? Would you wish to prevent the state funding of gay history month? "

To be fair, I imagine there would be many social liberals in our party who would say it is no business of the State to fund such things, while not denying individuals the right to organise such things out of their own resources.

[John Hustings]

"To be fair, I imagine there would be many social liberals in our party who would say it is no business of the State to fund such things, while not denying individuals the right to organise such things out of their own resources"

I'd like to see them actively campaign against this then. But I very much doubt they would.

And as I say, any social conservative who did would be lambasted as an authoritarian and a moraliser.

[Margaret]

I think the Conservative Party should support marriage. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. It makes me cringe when I see these children pushing prams. I hope the Party aren't going to support a voting age of 16.

The personal tax allowance should be transferrable between partners. It is much better for the mother to stay at home until the children go to school, than put them in a nursery, which is both costly to the parents and the taxpayer.

The Conservative Party should remember that charity begins at home, and stop throwing money at countries which are governed by corrupt dictators.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I agree entirely with John Hustings postings of both 14.21 and 16.44, and I think the paragraph about media snobbery is 'spot on'.

[Paul Kennedy]

"As I see it there are four varieties of conservative:

1) economically conservative and socially liberal (classical liberalism or libertarianism)

2) economically conservative and socially conservative (probably the truest use of 'conservative')

3) economically centrist and socially authoritarian (compassionate conservative?)

4) economically centrist and socially liberal (eg. Soho modernisers like Portillo)"

TC

Looks like I'm version 2, so a bit worried that there is probably not a lot going for me really!

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Wouldn't married couples tax allowance mean that house prices were lowered since at the moment, house prices are predicated on both partners working full time whether they have children or not? Just a thought.

Speaking as a gay person, I have no problem with married couples allowance. Tax breaks are better than state handouts, which were always meant for the worst off in society. Stronger families make for better off children and a stronger society overall. How could I have a problem with that?

It's no skin off my nose. I am perfectly capable of recognising the difference between family values and homophobia.

The right's strange obsession with all things gay has always puzzled me. I just don't see why it should worry them. Section 28 et al was responsible for driving an entire generation of gay people into the arms of the Lib Dems and Labour. That vague sense that the greater acceptance of alternative lifestyles was going to destabalise marriage and family never made any sense. Surely it's the inability of straight people to stick with the people they married, or even to choose marriage and family in the first place which is causing all the havoc?

In the 1950's drink driving, homophobia, racism and domestic violence were widely practiced although little remarked upon. Women, ethnic minorities and gay people have made progress since then and it hasn't been at the expense of destroying society in the process. Some values should stay in the past, others are forever.

[Melissa Bean]

I too dislike the description of "left" and "right". I think they are largely meaningless terms. How would you describe a anti-establishment Eurosceptic politician who was in favour of gay rights and relaxed abortion laws, whilst being against an independent British nuclear deterrent and increased immigration into Britain? Left-wing? Right-wing? The politician I'm referring to is Enoch Powell. I'm sure "left-wingers" in this country would be up in arms if I pointed out the similarity between some of their positions.

My political views are fairly typically Conservative - I'm a capitalist who thinks that the state should keep out of people's lives, and that personal responsibility should be enforced to a greater degree. Compare my beliefs with another Conservative Party member who believes that government should both enforce a certain set of morals and be protectionist in its approach to the economy - which one of us is "right-wing"? It's a nonsense term.

Back to Donal's article though, he makes a salient point. Thatcher surrounded herself with a lot of "wets" initially when she became leader as well as "dries". Cameron has adopted a similar approach, surrounding himself with
figures such as Clarke, Hesletine, Maude and May, whilst keeping Fox, Davis and Hague close, and letting the neo-Cons & libertarians (hurrah!) write his speeches.. :)

[Melissa Bean]

Whoops, the last paragraph of my post above was referring to today's article by Donal which I had been reading prior to this one. Apologies!

[Sean Fear]

I'd be willing to bet that domestic and racial violence, like all forms of violent crime, are a good deal more widespread now than they were in the fifties.

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

Too true Sean. The violence and unpleasantness of today's undisciplined society begets every type of violence.

Have you noticed a tendency in PC TV dramas to suggest that even the most unpleasant and violent characters (eg the senior detective in the recent 'Life on Mars' series)couldn't possibly be racist?

It's nonsense. Violent racism (from all races) is a product of the ill-mannered, nasty liberal society in which we live.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

So, it's much more common these days to have B&B's with "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks" in the window? And the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act were basically unnecessary? And being gay was of course perfectly legal and acceptable? You're really, really stretching the truth to argue that racism and racial violence are a product of the modern age. The reason why racism and discrimination didn't appear to exist before the 70's was because nobody ever thought there was anything wrong with it?

Please don't ever try that argument with a disabled person, a gay person or a black person. Especially not if you have a roset on.

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

Henry old boy you're in the wrong party. The socialists brought in all that anti-liberty legislation. Tories opposed it, and quite right too.

There's far more racial violence now than there was in the 50s and its down to socialists and closet (?) socialists like you.

Tories should stand up proudly for liberty and that means getting rid of the equal pay act and other fascist legislation.

Not much chance of me wearing a rosette until Cameron gets the boot.

[Sean Fear]

Henry, I think there's not much doubt that Britain was a much less violent, disorderly, drunken, society fifty years ago than it was today.

That's not to say it was paradise either. But anybody, gay, straight, black, white, male or female would benefit if the low levels of crime, strong family structures, and high level of patriotism which prevailed 50 years ago were once again to become the norm.

[wicks]

Isn't married couples tax allowance just more of the big government the Conservatives dispise?

[Andrew]

"We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe"

....and the lowest rate, as usual, is in the Netherlands (five times lower per capita than us). Just as with their drugs laws producing the lowest death rate in Europe by a mile, their sensible approach to sex education produces the desired result. The only worse record in the developed world is the USA, which has abysmal sex education due to the bible-bashers.

If only the EU was based in Amsterdam rather than the (hopeless) Brussels, we wouldn't have so much trouble with it :-)

[hayek's grandad]

Colours to the mast first I suppose - I call myself liberal (and not just because it annoys the lib-dems who are as illiberal as it's possible to be). I believe in small government/localism/individualism. I don't think it's up to government to promote certain types of lifestyle or to discourage them either and I don't think we need to do so to improve society, here's why.

For example, I ask myself why it is that if a working partner employs an outsider to look after her/his children then she/he may claim tax relief, but if the chose to 'pay' their partner to do so they may not?

There are obvious advantages to people working together either as a couple or an extended family or a community, the problem is that many of the advantages have been used by various governments over the years as a source of free income (through the provision of free carers for the young the old and the needy). As this government continues to give more and more financial help to those who choose not to work within some form of community I find it unsurprising that fewer and fewer people feel the need to take part in any form of communal life.

The answer is not to add more government by creating new allowances and special cases for those who do choose to support each other but to lessen government by removing the discrimination against them.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

"anti-liberty legislation" - The liberty to pay women less than men for equal work? The liberty to refuse to hire women who had children? To sack women when they became pregnant?

Sean, yeah, as a gay person the 1950's would be a paradise, and I'm sure I would indeed benefit from the low crime rate. I'd probably meet so many nice people whilst I was in prison for my sexuality.

[Sean Fear]

I imagine your chances of ending up in prison would have been extremely remote Henry.

But those of us who don't view the world through your particular prism would see some merit in low crime rates and strong family ties.

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

>>I'd probably meet so many nice people whilst I was in prison for my sexuality.<<

Henry, you'd have such a whale of a time you'd never want to leave.

But does it never strike you as odd that the anti-liberty policies you claim are 'conservative' were originally supported by Socialists and Liberals and opposed by Conservatives?

Liberty is indivisible and, yes, it has to include the freedom to do things of which Henry Whitmarsh disapproves as well as those things he considers to be 'cool'.

Henry. Do you actually have any identifiable Conservative principles?

If so, what?

[Michael McGowan]

Sean, I agree with your points. I was born in 1963 and have no nostalgia whatsoever for the 1950's. There was clearly a lot wrong with the 1950's (including the things that Henry Whitworth mentions) just as there is with any decade. I don't believe in golden ages. However, an article of faith for Conservative modernisers and the likes of Polly Toynbee and other ageing left-wing baby boomers is that the 1950's were the Dark Ages: an era of unparalleled repression and bigotry. To challenge this article of faith, which is clearly nonsense, is of course to lay oneself open to the usual abuse as a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc. As Sean rightly points out, there are many types of abuse in society today which are not only condoned but in many cases actively encouraged by the cross-party politico-media establishment. However, this is a truth which dare not speak its name because we must live Britain as it is.

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

Yes it's strange how the '50s (which I JUST remember)are being demonised by the media in this way. Possibly it is just down to sheer ignorance rather than some sinister PC plot.

The idea that a new era of repression of homosexuals suddenly opened after the war is nonsense. In his recent antobiography Lord Montagu of Beaulieu joins in this fashionable chorus, but had he been convicted of indecency in the 1930s the chances are that he would not only have been gaoled...

...he would have been flogged as well.