Tuesday, January 27, 2009

How to be a Happy Homosexual

Graeme Archer explains how, in a beautifully written article on CentreRight. He reckons gay people are natural Tories and should fight against legislation which is supposedly designed to protect gay people against incitements to hatred, but is actually all about restricting freedoms.
I am not a cynical being, but I'll overcome my proclivity for optimism, with which I was born, and against which counselling has proven ineffective, to study the heart of this wretched proposal, to peer into the manipulative hearts of those who propose it. It's sole purpose is to shore up Labour's vote in the liberal, educated middle-class, to act as a reminder to them of everything they disliked about the last Tory government.

Indulge me for a moment, and don't argue with the proposition that a large proportion of educated people really did dislike the Tory party a few years ago. David Cameron has been markedly successful at making the Tory party their natural home again. The law is for the Margaret Drabbles of this world, who think it's usually best to be on the side of good things, and see kindness as one of life's immutable good things. They tend to know and like lots of gay people, and so are supposed to draw the inference 'This act will protect my good friend X. So I am in favour of the Act. Moreover, I'm in favour of the people who propose it, and against those who vote against it'. The legislation is designed for nothing more than to give editorial writers at the Guardian the reason they need to decide not to write leaders of cautious favour about David Cameron. Insidious, isn't it?

Insidious, but, I expect, unsuccessful. It would have achieved its objective in 1999, but not in 2009. We've been here before, haven't we? All the arguments against legislating against freedom of expression in the realm of religious belief apply, identically, in this case. If you don't like homosexuality, whose life is improved by making it a crime for you to say so?

Stonewall have fallen straight into Labour's trap, expostulating about Tory opposition as some sort of 'red meat'. Clever phrase, since we tend to be vegetarians - all these liberal shibboleths cluster together, you know - but wrong-headed. I'm not going to attack Stonewall. The life of someone like me has been made better in the last few years, and Stonewall were at the front of most of those improvements. But they are being foolish in acting as Labour's cats paw. I would have thought the mayoral election would have finally cured them of their flirtation with identity politics, with seeing 'gay voter' as a synonym for 'Labour voter'.

They'll get there, eventually. For the big hidden secret of homosexuality isn't to do with checked shirts, or silly dance music, or soft furnishings, or those unpleasant words used by columnists whose favourite activity is to be as unkind as possible about people they've never met. It's even more shocking. Most gay men are naturally conservative.
Read on HERE. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Graeme is one of the most talented writers in the British blogosphere.

63 comments:

Old Holborn said...

It never ceases to amaze me how loud homosexuals like to shout.

They have become the most successful of "minorities" yet I cannot for the life of me see the difference between a homosexual and someone who likes BDSM, or adult babies. It's all done by consent, between adults.

Yet only homosexuals have demanded quotas, rights and as much attention as they can get.

I don't care what you do in bed. Stop telling me about it, I'm not interested.

Old Holborn said...

Sod it, blogged it

Praguetory said...

Yep. Well written and well argued by Graeme. It would be interesting to see how this legislation is viewed by they work for you who evaluate how MPs vote for 'equal gay rights'.

Chris Paul said...

This argument is perverse. It is on the record how Tory Governments and Tory politicians in or out of government vote against the interests of this constituency time and time and time again. Perverse. The argument is perverse.

And as for Dominic Fisher endorsing it as "well written". How the hell would he know? The lonely old sod.

DespairingLiberal said...

I don't often finding myself agreeing with you Chris, but I do on this. I think this a bit of wishful thinking by Iain and other gays in the Tories - they realise that their politics clashes with the way their party regards their sexuality. So they hope to make small adjustments to make it bearable and one of them is kind of hoping that people in the party will just sort of ignore it and then things will be all right.

The problem is Iain that in the long run that won't work. Next time there is some sort of homophobic eruption, you will find many in the Tory party joining in enthusiastically. There is always an element of that in all parties, but in the end the ideological underpinnings of the left and liberal/social democrat movements will tend to cause them to be more open to thinking well about your group.

I suspect that when the chips are down, gays in the Tories will wish they had joined the LibDems.

Paul Halsall said...

Iain,

Can you seriously deny that under Labour (1997-), the legal and social position of gays and lesbians (and TGs for that matter) improved beyond all telling.

Meanwhile, some gay men are conservative in some areas and others are not.

Most that I know are libertarian about drug use, sex in privacy (including consensual SM, FF-ing, and access to Porn).

If the Daily Mail is the temperament of Tory Britain it has almost nothing in common with what gays want.

OTOH, being gay has no bearing whatsoever on views such as whether we should have more atomic power stations, a third runway at heathrow, or the deficit.

I do, however, believe most gay men want to abolish Graham Norton.

[PS: And they all think Prince Harry is cute.]

Dave said...

I'm not anti gay. But I'm with Old Holborn on this.

Why should certain "minorities" claim rights over other minorities, like mine for example.

I'm a white heterosexual male, born in the UK. I'm a minority. However, I don't want special treatment. I only want EQUAL treatment.
Positive dicrimination is still discrimination.
Quotas are still discrimination.

I recall an episode of The Simpsons when the teacher told Bart that they were "all special". Bart replied that that was exactly the same as saying none of them are special.

Human rights, anti discrimination laws etc etc only make lawyers and politicians rich. Not forgetting all the charity workers who feed off their clients.

Abolish the lot

Wrinkled Weasel said...

It just goes to show that the phrase, "the gay community" is as equivocal and misleading as saying "the brunette community".

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Dave, you should be practicing your bass playing.

Guthrum said...

Sorry run that pass me again Homosexuals are 'natural' Tories, sorry my sexual appetites have no bearing one way or another on my political viewpoints especially on the movable feast that is a political party.

Surely to God, there is more to being a Human Being than being defined by your sexuality

Utterly Bizarre

wild said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wild said...

What is your opinion that DOMINIC FISHER (who I do not know from Adam) is a "lonely old sod" got to do with the price of fish.

Chris Paul crawl back under your damp little stone you sad excuse for a man.

Iain Dale said...

I absolutely agree that the position is far better than ten years ago. At my Civil Partnership I publicly thanked Tony Blair for making that day possible.

Have to disagree with you on Prince Harry, though :)

Andrew said...

Iain this is self-dillusional. The Tory record on human rights (let along gay rights) is lamentable. I used to be in Torch (remember them?) - and the abuse from party members was shocking! I them switched to the Lib Dems and have never looked back.

As for Dave - how can a white heterosexual male be considered a minority. It has never been about "special" rights, it has been about equality - the things you take for granted. Things have got better over the last few years which wouldn't have happened under Hague, Duncan Smith or Howard and I'm not sure would have under Cameron.

Old Holborn said...

Damn it

No sooner do I post a rant about the rest of us not mentioning what we do in bed, Barack and Michelle reveal they enjoy fisting on Fox News

Zeddy said...

Bing

Zeddy said...

***I'm a white heterosexual male, born in the UK. I'm a minority. However, I don't want special treatment. I only want EQUAL treatment. Positive dicrimination is still discrimination.***

I'm impressed by your live and let live, everyone should be treated equally attitude, Dave. Can we therefore assume that, when the Tories were legislating against "gay lifestyles", you were condemning this as unequal treatment?

White heterosexual males are not discriminated against. They're simply no longer accorded the automatic priority in life that they once received and that some of them still consider their birthright.

As for Old Holborn insisting that he doesn't care what gays get up to in bed, his "I really really REALLY don't care" posts every time any gay issue arises suggest otherwise.

Until relatively recently, the approach to homosexuals of that equality-loving, we-oppose-discrimination group, the heterosexual male, has been to criminalise them and to kick the shit out of them. If the very worst that they do in revenge is to appropriate words like "gay" for themselves, write lengthy articles demanding rights and (deep breath here) hold hands in public, I reckon that the heterosexual make has got off lightly.

Underscore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wrinkled Weasel said...

I see the mincing martyrs are out again.

For your info, Zeddy old fruit, I have never "kicked the shit out of" a gay person or argued against equality on a societal level.

I shared a cottage with a gay man over 35 years ago and got called "queer" on the strength of it. So don't, please don't tar hets with the same brush for dramatic effect and for the purposes of making you look like a treasured minority, and grow up. You are not the only gay in the village, but you are certainly posing as him.

Old Holborn said...

Zeddy

Two homosexual men can now adopt and raise a child. The argument being that being homosexual is not a choice and therefore why should they be denied the right of parenthood.

Do you agree with this?

It is a little more than holding hands in public.

Zeddy said...

***Two homosexual men can now adopt and raise a child. The argument being that being homosexual is not a choice and therefore why should they be denied the right of parenthood.

Do you agree with this?
***

But, Old Holborn, isn't this a socialist argument that you're making? That people should be pigeonholed and treated by the state according to bare statistics rather than according to their individual worth?

I think that the most preferable household in which to place adopted children is one with a mother and a father in a stable, long term relationship. Given a straight choice between such a household and a homosexual couple, I'd probably go for the former.

But it's rarely a straight choice. Imagine that the choice for the adoption agency was between Iain and his partner and Shannon Matthews' parents. By your argument, the child would be placed with the latter.

Anyway, my preference for a hetero couple adopting is probably only because that's what I'm used to myself. But what does an adopted child need? To be loved and cared for or to have social stereotypes and prejudices reinforced for it?

The argument which is always brought up is that a child adopted by two men would have a hard time at school with other kids taking the piss. But, depending on where you go to school, a child with a black father and white mother would experience prejudice at school - yet you wouldn't ban a mixed race couple from adopting.

Oh, you would. My mistake.

Simon Wright said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zeddy said...

public school Tories

Leaving aside for a moment the irony of your use of a silly generalisation to, I seriously doubt that it's the public school Tories that are anti-gayers in the party. Don't recall that David Davis or Tebbit went to Eton.

Guthrum said...

it is Labour. All discriminatory laws have been replaced and we are equal under the law.

Ha Ha Ha Ha !

You sad sacks believe this don't you- I had not realised that Paradise on earth had already arrived !

Simon Wright said...

Reposting. It is Labour to thank for the complete overhaul of all laws since 1997. All discriminatory laws have been replaced and we are equal under the law. The Tories opposed every measure one by one and are still trying to repeal some of them. A few deluded gay men might like the misogyny of the public school Tories but the rest of us are not fooled by their "rebranding".

Dave said...

Is it gang up on Zeddy time?

Wrinkled weasel old mate. Practising bass will be done in my own time. This is work time so it's OK.

Must fly. The boss is watching

lastreporter said...

Thanks for this Iain.

Graeme's article is well-written, well-argued and well beside the point.

It would be marvellous, wouldn't it, if everyone growing up gay, bisexual or just confused had that steely self-reliance in them that he talks about. But you know what? They don't.

We can't all have the self-belief of Margaret Thatcher. Some of us are insecure. Some of us are bullied. Some of us are predisposed to self-loathing. And if not predisposed, we are tipped in that direction by the bigotry of other people (like our families) and the sheer mountain of expectation for us to be just like all the other boys and girls, i.e. heterosexual.

Graeme is wrong to say that legislation has nothing to do with gay liberation. It's got a lot to do with it. It helps change the climate of public opinion. When I was growing up and people were debating whether to reduce the homosexual age of consent to 16, I thought it must be wrong to do so. Now it's been lowered, I can't imagine why I'd think that.

For God's sake, never mind conservatism vs. social democracy, we should be able to agree that changes in social attitudes do not just happen by themselves, nor should they be allowed to.

How many more gays have to be beaten to death on Clapham Common before we say enough is enough? How many more young people have to feel guilty or suicidal because nobody knows or empathises with what's going on in their head? These things cry out for intervention as textile mill accidents cried out for the Factory Acts.

P.S. I actually agree with Graeme about the Waddington Amendment, by the way. It's only the argument he's tacked on the end I object to.

Old Holborn said...

"How many more gays have to be beaten to death on Clapham Common before we say enough is enough?"

OH Tip of the Day

Don't go to Clapham Common at night to have sex with strangers then

God, it's not rocket science. No doubt you will now scream "IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE SEX IN PUBLIC WITH STRANGERS, HOMOPHOBE" as loud as you can, form a facebook group for people who feel oppressed because they cannot have sex with strangers in public and demand an EU grant.

To quote Stonewall

"So you're Gay. Get over it"

Old Holborn said...

Iain,

Do you have any idea why the Department of Trade and Industry gives loads of my money to Stonewall??

Wrinkled Weasel said...

OH:

The London Gay Mens choir get public funding too. I am thinking of starting a London Straight Men's choir. Any idea if I might get a grant?

DespairingLiberal said...

I think many of the comments on this thread rather bear out my view that you are up against it in the Tory Party Iain. You must have developed a thick skin and I admire your courage. However, Liberal-to-liberal, I think you should consider going the whole way and coming over to the LibDems, where you will find a good home and many worthy challenges. No pun intended.

I am quite serious in many ways - I think you would make a brilliant LibDem MP. I would be happy to be your agent.

I have not been drinking this evening.

Iain Dale said...

You may not have been drinking, but you must be 'on' something! Individually, I like many LibDems, but the Tory Party is my home and always will be. I was a member of the Liberal Party for 6 months in 1978 until I was seduced by Mrs T.

DespairingLiberal said...

I was hoping your seduction by Lady T had ebbed a little Iain.

Shame though as I suspect you are much closer to us than you are to most of the slightly nuttier ultra-rightists who hang (rather confusedly) around here.

Grim Reaper said...

I'm not surprised that Old Holborn is a homophobic prat. (I would like to use a stronger word, but Iain's blog, Iain's rules) I'm even less surprised to find out he's obsessed with sex? It must be all because of all that time he spends over on Kerry McCarthy's blog. I'm not sure whether Kerry should take that as a compliment, but I digress.

As for the article, I must agree with it. I know a few men who are gay and none of them spout the sort of flowery drivel you see in The Grauniad every day. No, they're all proper right-wingers who know how to get things done.

Zeddy said...

Old Holborn, sweetheart, I appreciate that it must have come as a deep shock to you as a regular on Iain's blog to find him discussing gay issues. If only Iain had the decency to add a warning at the top of the page.

WARNING: MAY OFFEND PEOPLE LIVING IN 1952.

If people like you honestly didn't care what consenting adults got up to in bed, these nasty fairies would soon pipe down and stop pestering you.

DespairingLiberal said...

I assume Old Holborn having that name is some sort of fine but rather aging rough-cut shag?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

If you go looking for sex with strangers on Clapham Common you are being stupid and irresponsible, in the same way as you would be stupid and irresponsible walking on Clapham Common at night with a shiny new Rolex and a brand new Ipod. Sorry but you are asking for it.

Crimes against humans, especially violent crime, is abhorrent, but if your lifestyle choice is to put yourself in unnecessary danger, you only have yourself to blame. There is nothing "homophobic" about that.

And I reserve the right to criticise gays if they are being stupid - it's my way of welcoming them to the rest of society.

Grim Reaper said...

"If you go looking for sex with strangers on Clapham Common you are being stupid and irresponsible..."

And what does this have to do with the original topic of gays being more conservative exactly?

DespairingLiberal said...

Actually Wrinkled, Clapham Common these days seems to be nothing but posh kids with shiny equipmentata. Shame really as it used to be refreshingly scummy around there. Now you can't move for brokers and trustfunders, although I suppose it will go downwards a bit what with the sad depression in massive City bonuses.

Old Holborn said...

Reaper

I am rather bored with being reminded every ten minutes of one particular groups sexual preferences. I am also now finding out that I am funding it too, via my taxes.

No doubt you like your taxes being spent on things that have nothing to do with you or your life, without your consent and only for the benefit of the chosen few, in which case, keep voting New Labour

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Sorry Despairing, it's 20 years since I have been on Clapham Common and in those days I was there to count the buttercups and daisies, not the pansies.

Grim, I was merely trying to suggest that it is not cool to call someone "homophobic" just because they criticise what gays do.

I want to get away from the idea that gays are somehow precious and a protected species. If gay people muck in like the rest of us, and take criticism on the chin, instead of playing the gay card, I am one hundred percent in support.

I think that would be difficult to disagree with, don't you, unless you want special treatment, and that is the crux of this thread

Mr Mr said...

Give it a rest Iain. I am a Happy hetrosexual, yet I do not shout it from the rooftops.

And what are these gay pride parades all about? I find them very offensive but I am not allowed to say so in the MSM. If I were to walk down the street with my toggle and two hanging out I would be arrested as a possible pervert but it seems that it is OK for gayers to proudly do so.

Grim Reaper said...

Old Holborn says: "No doubt you like your taxes being spent on things that have nothing to do with you or your life, without your consent and only for the benefit of the chosen few, in which case, keep voting New Labour"

Wow, you automatically assume I'm a New Labour voter because I disagree with you? What a pathetic life you must lead! For the record, I absolutely loathe this government with a passion. I wouldn't vote for it if I was the last man on the planet. And what makes you think the Tories would be any different anyway? I don't think that organisations such as Stonewall should receive any public money whatsoever, either. Don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

No reply to my point about Kerry McCarthy either - though I suppose she'd be relieved.

Old Holborn said...

"I don't think that organisations such as Stonewall should receive any public money whatsoever, either"

Horse, water, LEAD

I doubt you are old enough to read a balance sheet or financial accounts but if you look closely you will find on page 11...

Department of Trade & Industry
£303,641

That's my money, that is. To "promote" homosexuality in schools.

Head of Department?

Lord Fondlebum of Boys. Of course.

Now get on with your homework.

Grim Reaper said...

Old Holborn says: "Now get on with your homework."

Aww, poor widdle Holborn. Are you going to have another temper tantrum and decide to close your blog before changing your mind less than 48 hours later?

DespairingLiberal said...

G. Repear, I think Holborn is already having the tantrum.

I suppose it would lack color around here if Holborn were to depart to the Great Tobbaconist in the Sky, but I for one would miss the sense of sub-Alf Garnettesque ranting he brings to the proceedings.

Er. On second thoughts, maybe not.

lastreporter said...

I love the responses to my suggestion that maybe it would be nice if people on Clapham Common didn't get beaten to death.

Old Holborn: "Don't go to Clapham Common at night to have sex with strangers then"

Wrinkled Weasel: "If you go looking for sex with strangers on Clapham Common you are being stupid and irresponsible, in the same way as you would be... walking on Clapham Common at night with a shiny new Rolex and a brand new Ipod. Sorry but you are asking for it."

So, it's all right because they asked for it is it?

So in this country the statutory punishment for soliciting sex (or wearing a Rolex on Clapham Common) is beating to death is it?

Very civilised of you both.

DespairingLiberal said...

I think you will find they are both pretty representative of the Unreconstructed Widdiesque Right lastreporter - a right pair of Old Blue headbangers.

Bring back Harvey Milk.

Old Holborn said...

So I was right

You DO demand the right to have sex with strangers on Clapham Common at night. Then you'll blame me because you run into Dennis Neilson or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Want a Police escort?

Call the Gay Police Association then. Don't worry, I'll pick up the bill. They may not be available however, they may be at an infant school telling the children to be nice to each other even if Steven keeps showing the boys his willy.

Give me strength. Rome is burning and you lot are demanding KY vending machines in the bushes

Old Holborn said...

PSSST

Don't tell anyone but the biggest killers of gay men are gay men

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Someone who goes lurking about a public park at night is irresponsible. It is not me being Tory or homophobic. It is merely the reality of life.

You are suggesting that you can stand in the middle of the M6 during the rush hour and claim its "my rights".I hope you do that. You certainly could do the gene pool a favour.

Old Holborn said...

Stanislav, possibly the greatest commentator on any blog left this on mine

stanislav, a young polish plumber said...
BEWARE OF GAYS BEARING SNOT.

It is a point well made. Many - constitutionally tolerant, easygoing, free-thinking, non-conformist Outsiders - are up to here with marching regiments of bleating nancies, of pierced exhibitionistic freaks, of pansies dressed entirely provocatively as dildo-wielding nuns - and thus, themselves, violating the sensibilities of countless religious persons - and of the tiresome and juvenile preoccupation with anal sex and its concomitant risk to the wider population. To air any such concern is, of course, de trop and is akin, apparently, or encouraging of, the specific violence which is known as gay or queer bashing. As you say, many fall victim to mindless violence at the hands of crazy bastards; that some victims are gay and are targeted for being such is only as regrettable as a woman being raped, pissed on and thrown in the canal or a family man being killed outside his home over a bottle of plonk, it is no more so and it is an impudence to suggest otherwise.


Impudence, however, is something engineered into many.


Some preachytype on order-order accused us of homophobia and racism and cowardice and fuck knows what else, all the sins that person is heir to under NewLabour and all merely for stating the obvious about Sweet Baby Gordon. The thing, one of the things, about these people is that so great is their conceit, so narrow their vision that they can only conclude that criticism of Brown must mean a pro-Tory stance on the part of the critic. Below is part of the respnse to he who is called Mr Inquisitor.



"......plumbers federation is neither racist nor pro-Tory and not antigay, so egalitarian are we that we believe - incomprehensibly to a mind such as yours - that gay people are entitled to exactly the same amount of derision, mockery and abuse as any other twittering, Me First minority "Community" of this or that - Hebes, Taffies, Paddies, Dykes, doctors, Pikies, Jocks, lawyers and so on, the common application of the word Community is, upon even the mildest scrutiny, deeply offensive, exclusive, segregationist, supremacist and divisive; there is only one "Community" and it is planetary,polyglottal, polyracial and polysexual; and it is generally divided into those who are oppressed and those, like yourself, who do the oppressing shit. It is not Brown's clear sexual preference or, as we must say, orientation, it is the deceit which rankles, in that and almost everything else. Gore Vidal, incidentally, a noted and incisive poof, often remarked that there is no such thing as a homosexual, just a person who commits homosexual acts; many find this a persuasive analysis although it would probably put a lot of gay, lesbian and transgender workers out of a job as well as forcing idiots like yourself to think a little harder than you do.


As for homofuckingphobia it is, so to speak, an arsehole word which no thoughtful person would deploy, one of many dreamed up by ill-lettered Jobsworth bureaucrats and vengeful minority misanthropes over the past twenty years, linguistically it is meaningless, contradictory and for the vast majority in this country, a cultural irritation, a vile Newspeak. Fuck me, even Mr Fucking Delicious doesn't talk about racism and homophobia And he's a McMutant, bless his Cro-magnon ginger heid.

The racism rebuke is also pathetic. How many dead Iraqis is it now, how many slaughtered Afghani wedding parties, how many brown children butchered for Blair's bonus, his medal of Dishonour.

Those ungrateful Iraqi bitches still haven't thanked Geoff Hoon for him killing their own wee babes. Racism ? NewLabour are the biggest racists in recent history. You are obviously in the right party........"


Odd, isn't it, that the notional dialectic of liberation -sexual, political, religious - is hi-jacked by the institutionalised, industrial-scale murderers, thieves, blackmailers, nonces and racists of new Labour and that we, the Eternal Outsiders, our faces shat upon, are rebuked for our incorrect words.

Let us join to-gether and pray, as we gathered together in cyberspace often pray - Up, straight, gay or wha-ever, against the wall, motherfuckers.






God, I wish I was that good at blogging.

Iain. Feel free to delete, it Is your blog and YOUR property. But God, it IS art.

DespairingLiberal said...

It's not art Ol' Holby. It's a great load of drivel. Go to bed and give it a rest.

Newmania said...

Hey heres a good test of your gay lingo knowledge , anyone know what playing the trombone is .... I do ( yuk).

Answer on a sheet of A4 paper please

Simon Gardner said...

Chris Paul said...
“This argument is perverse.”

Simon Wright said...
“The Tories opposed every measure one by one and are still trying to repeal some of them.”

Quite so. It is just bizarre for anyone to claim the Tories as a home for gay people. Iain deludes himself big time.

The Tories have opposed every single liberalisation in the law They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the late 20th century - let alone the 21st.

It beggars belief that any homosexual thinks the Tories are or ever will be a friend to gay people. It’s just nonsense.

Iain Dale said...

What utter nonsense. I accept that this was once the case in the Tory Party, but it is no longer so. Which is why Alan Duncan spoke for the front bench for the Conservatives in favour of civil partnerships.

You're far more prejudiced. It's just that it is Tories you are prejudiced against the Tories and have blinkers on.

DespairingLiberal said...

I think Simon over-eggs the pudding Iain, as you say, but I suspect that whilst your front bench are happy to show a change in this, the sad, homophobe and in some cases, deranged, comments of many of your most loyal blogees right here in front of us do tend to indicate that he may have a point about the generality of Blues.

I guess in the heart of fashionable Bloomsbury or wherever it is you hang out these days Iain, it's easier to forget the ancestral Tory archetype, prejudice and archaic dinosaurisms coming out of every orifice.

I feel moved by your courage in sticking around!

But really chaps, Iain's secret is something different. He is not a closet Gay. He is a closet Liberal. And I daresay even the most rabid of you are more scared by that than you are by Pink people.

Iain Dale said...

Despairing Liberal, I certanly do not hang out in Bloomsbury - well, not since the demise of 18 Doughty Street anyway!

There's nothing closet liberal about me. I am an out and proud liberal. I am a social liberal and economic liberal, unlike most Liberal Democrats who conveniently ignore the economic bit.

And you totally misjudge both my readers and the Tory Party. old Holborn is not a Tory and most of the homophobia I have come across in politics has certainly not been among Tory Party members.

DespairingLiberal said...

Thanks for the clarifications Iain. What then is Old Holborn? Perhaps you can define it Holbie? I have tried, but your ramblings are so intensive that I feel a multidisciplinary team of dedicated psychologists and sociologists may be required to sort out which party you should belong to.

I agree about the economic liberalism part Iain, if you mean laissez-faire, but alas, I fear that you may even be lonesome there within the hallowed portals of Whigdom, as many of it's 21st century denizens seem comfortable with at least a modicum of state intervention. The belicose voice of Protectionism often seems to emanate from the right as much as from the centre or left.

Nice hearing more about your arrangements anyway Master Dale - where do you locate yourself office-wise these days? I had a mental picture of you lurking around Doughty Street, evidently that needs to change! Are you in some ghastly Essex locale?

Iain Dale said...

One day I am sure I will return to my Essex roots (you can take the boy out of Essex... etc etc) but for now I live in Tunbridge Wells and my office is on Cowley Street, SW1. Indeed, I sit about four feet from a wall that separates my building from LibDem HQ!

DespairingLiberal said...

Cowley St. Isn't there a Tory HQ office somewhere around there?

Iain Dale said...

No, LibDem HQ is in Cowley Street. Tory HQ is in Millbank Tower.

DespairingLiberal said...

Right. I thought the Tories had an office around there for a while. Maybe I'm thinking of a different street - weren't they somewhere else in between Smith Square and Millbank?