David Laws

[fredv3b]

The whole David Laws thing (see UK press for details) has got me thinking and I have two questions that I really can't answer. First, why would someone who so keenly wanted to keep his private life private stand for Parliament in the first place? Second, given that the party with the most gay MPs is, in fact, the Tories, is it easier to be a gay Tory than a gay Lib Dem?

[colinmackay]

I thought the Lib Dems were supposed to be the most "gay friendly" party. (Or am I just being naive?)

[fredv3b]

While the Tories are not the most gay-friendly party in terms of attitudes and policies to Britain as a whole, I wonder whether the story is different as to how they treat their own members and MPs?

[marshlander]

The same thought struck me, Fred. Anyone who is elected to Parliament must surely know in advance that they are going to come under intense scrutiny. If a prospective parliamentary candidate doesn't realise that simple truth he or she doesn't deserve to be elected. Maybe David Laws wasn't expecting to win?

As for "gay friendly", I would not put the LibDems at the head of that list. Of the parties represented in Parliament, the Greens probably deserve that acolade. The LibDems, in whatever guise, have long had a rather dishonourable homophobic feather (it's probably unfair to suggest they have a wing). While we hoped that Bermondsey 1983 was ancient history, David Laws has sadly proven that the phobic tendency is still active. What a disappointment.

[marshlander]

Just seen this comment by Matthew Parris in The Times.

I wonder how long this version of gay panic will have to play out?

The foul hypocrisy of David Laws’ downfall | Matthew Parris - Times Online

[fredv3b]

Anyone who is elected to Parliament must surely know in advance that they are going to come under intense scrutiny. If a prospective parliamentary candidate doesn't realise that simple truth he or she doesn't deserve to be elected. Maybe David Laws wasn't expecting to win?

I wouldn't go as far as to say he does not deserve to be elected, but he was certainly foolish. He certainly was expecting to win, he's Paddy Ashdown's successor as the MP for Yeoville, a distinctly safe Lib Dem seat.

As for "gay friendly", I would not put the LibDems at the head of that list. Of the parties represented in Parliament, the Greens probably deserve that acolade.

I'm sorry but I consider the Greens a pressure group not a realistic political party.

[princealbertofb]

Isn't it time they did become a realistic political party? Or maybe they are more useful as a lobby?

[marshlander]

...I'm sorry but I consider the Greens a pressure group not a realistic political party.

Not realistic, or not a political party? Perhaps you could unravel your thoughts for me on that when you have time. I could accept an accusation of being a one-issue pressure group when they were known as the Ecology Party, but nowadays they seem to address most issues. I've not been a member for decades, but it seems to me they have been putting on a far more professional show of being a bona fide party in recent times and their glbti policies are more inclusive than anyone else's.

However, going by my area's local candidate it's a pity there don't seem to be Greens of Caroline Lucas' quality. When I was an active member of the party I did notice that many of us had never felt moved to get involved with politics before. Maybe it's the level of experience of the general membership some of who may not themselves appreciate a difference between a pressure group and a political party? I may be doing them a disservice, but we were beginning to have this discussion when the party was rebranded in the 80s.

[fredv3b]

Not realistic, or not a political party?

To my mind political parties that lack fail to at least match their idealism with realism aren't really political parties.

I still hear the Green Party talking about what it thinks is important rather than what the average voter thinks is important i.e. the NHS, education, the state of the economy, etc. Merely having policies for the interested to read is not enough. All that said I do recognise that the Greens have made considerable and admirable progress towards becoming a political party, I just don't think they are there yet.

[marshlander]

...I just don't think they are there yet.

Fair enough, but if they just represented what the man in the street wanted would there be a point to them? Unless the internal party systems have changed the establishment of policy is carried out painfully democratically in order to reflect what its members feel is important. They certainly have, or had, policies concerning the three areas you mention.