Reader comments · Gay Labour group questions Cameron’s HIV support · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay Labour group questions Cameron’s HIV support

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 26 Nov 2010, 11:51am

    Whilst I do get what this Labour group are trying to say surely David Cameron’s message to take care of ourselves and others is still very positive esp coming from a Tory Prime Minister.

    I think this is more typical Labour and supporters whinging for whinging sake. I wonder if they’d rather he Mr Cameron didn’t make this statement therefore giving them a platform but whinge because that platform has been taken away.

    This is a good comment from the likes not expected aimed at people for World AIDS day. I think he has done well.

    I get that certain groups may be under threat but this is a personal message for others to be more responsible and that has to be applauded.

  2. What amazes me about Liebour party stooges bleating criticisms about cuts, is that they have managed to erase all memory of the reason why these cuts are taking place.

    Gordon Brown tried to bankrupt the country in the name of and on behalf of the Labour party – Lord help those with HIV had he been re-elected.

  3. There will be many ’causes’ hit due to the cutbacks which are required because of Labours inability to run the economy. For LGBT Labour to try and bleat about this particular one is a bit rich and to attack the PM for making an obvious and welcoming message to gay people is shameful.

  4. The cutbacks are NOT because of Labour! They are because of banks!

    I’m no Labour lover, but I hate people being treated unfairly. We have a deficit because we had to bail out banks, not because Labour were profligate spenders. There was no alternative. If they hadn’t, banks would have crumbled, with all our savings in them, cash machines would have emptied and supermarkets would have run out of food.

    Had the Tories been in, we can only assume they would have let that happen, then held a celebratory press conference to thank God that we didn’t have a deficit!

  5. theotherone 26 Nov 2010, 6:48pm

    yes yes we are in this state because of the banks.

    Rubbish: Labour pissed money up the wall and we’re having to sort things out now.

    Before screaming about Cuts can you offer an alternitive methord of Funding LGBT Labout? Thought not.

  6. At least some sense. People need to understand how the Tories rethoric is empty and designed to conceal their cronies’ stealings. Nobody can survive on “messages of support” alone. When you look at the details of what the ConDem coalition’s is offerings, you’ll see they are empty.

  7. And… Chris Grayling… you know that one don’t you? Yes, he himself… Chris “Homophobe” Grayling… the man who suggested B&Bs should be able to bar gay guests. He is still one of CallmeDave’s best friends… go figure…

  8. C’mon lgbt labour – you’re going find it hard to gain our support on this one… at the moment the govt is saying and doing all the right things. As for the controversial issue of marriage equality they’re doing as well as any other party and as well as stonewall ie bugger all…

    Look Stonewall has given them the thumbs up , aren’t they the rubber stamp for LGBT good practice!!! Anyway they seem to have the same agenda as Stonewall so they can’t be that bad!

  9. theotherone 27 Nov 2010, 8:59am

    ‘eople need to understand how the Tories rethoric is empty and designed to conceal their cronies’ stealings. ‘

    And what are Labour offering? More of the same. Labour are offering us exactly the same policies regarding spending as the Tories and I don’t see Labour quashing Historic Convictions for consensual sex do you?

  10. Jock S. Trap 27 Nov 2010, 10:54am

    So Ed Milibland is changing Labour policy. It will be interesting to see if supporting Equal marriage become a Labour policy! Now would be the chance.

  11. @theotherone: “Rubbish: Labour pissed money up the wall and we’re having to sort things out now.”

    Umm, they didn’t actually. Until the 2007 Financial Crisis, the UK’s Debt level was one of the best in Europe. 2006 Deficit: £6964 million. Net Borrowing £30,755 million. Hardly a record of an awful government that had held inflation to 3%.

    The debt we currently have to pay down was all incurred from bailing out the banks, which as I said was necessary to avoid depression – money which will be paid back with interest. Ergo, such massive cuts are purely ideological – smaller cuts in public spending would be more than sufficient to preserve our credit rating, and would cause much less long-term damage to the British people and our economy.

  12. Jock S. Trap 27 Nov 2010, 11:38am

    Actually Labour are fully to blame for the current dire financial problems as it was Tony Blair who removed all the legislation that stopped banks taking the risks that caused the banking crisis.

    Labour chose to spend money the country didn’t have esp around the election with open ended cheques for millions. Lets not forget Liam Byrnes little note when they were Finally booted from office regarding no money left. Clearly something they felt the need to joke about.

    I can’t believe people are so ignorant of the facts and remain in complete denial. There was a reason Labour lost the election and got the worst vote numbers in many decades.

    Lets face it, with regards the speding cuts, things would not have been done differently under Labour with the exception of how. With the Tories we can see what they are doing, what they are cutting. I’m pretty sure Labour would have cut exactly the same however sugar coated it and forced it through via stealth. It’s their way!

  13. de Villiers 27 Nov 2010, 1:39pm

    The banks went bankrupt because of the inadequate tri-partite system of regulation set up by Gordon Brown when Chancellor. Before, supervisory regulation was performed by the Bank of England – to which that function has now been returned.

    When looking at “cuts” it is worth noting the following. First, that spending will go up in cash terms each year. Second, that by the end of the five year Parliamentary term, public spending as a proportion of national income will be the same as in 2005-6. Third, that health spending (into which HIV spending falls) will be increased in both cash terms and real terms.

    Finally, the reason for “cuts” in other areas are as follows. First, the government had been borrowing too much money relative to tax income. Now that tax income has plummeted due to the recession, borrowing more will merely defer the pain to future generations. Second, because government spending was higher than tax income, the government failed to build up a surplus of cash to spend during the recession when tax receipts would go down. Third, the only means for the government to have continued spending would have been to borrow money on the international money markets. Those markets were pricing up the cost of bonds in the belief that the UK might be unable to pay the interest on them. If the government had not restrained the growth of public spending, the cost of interest would have soared causing interest rates in the UK to rise which would have caused many people to lose their homes.

    Finally, it is worth noting that those countries with proper banking regulation and fiscal restraint have not suffered such a recession as us. France and Germany have been out quickly. Australia has not suffered at all. The far east also have had no recession. Our recession was built and made in Britain. Recall that Northern Rock and the Royal Bank of Scotland were British banks lending to British homeowners under now discredited and hopeless British regulations.

  14. Jock S. Trap 27 Nov 2010, 1:56pm

    Lets not forget that Gordon Brown sold off all our gold reserves usually stocked and sold in times of recession!

  15. While the average Tory mouth is beeing shut for sipping champagne and telling the world how good life is, two famous phobes are “taking care” of the workers and pensioners. The ConDem is playing a game of passing the debt potato on, making sure it lands on the hands of the poorest, sickest and the elderly in our society. As a side show, the front boy feeds the gaiety patrons with “colourful messages of support”. Classic !!
    Gay tories —-> Duhhhh

  16. de Villiers 27 Nov 2010, 8:06pm

    Berbet – public spending will increase in cash terms each year. Education and health will rise in real terms each year. The proportion of public spending as a percentage of GDP will not at any point be below 40%.

  17. Maximilian 27 Nov 2010, 9:11pm

    In my view HIV charities such as THT and Waverley Care in Scotland, get large amounts of money to be seen to be helping people rather than actually doing so in practical terms and simply chase after the most “fashionable” sub-group of positive people to keep securing funding. Moreover, I have witnessed HIV charities consistently promote alarmist information which feeds, rather than reduces prejudice against positive people. My greatest admiration is for the Eddie Surman Trust which with minimal resources and largely through the work of one man – Peter Shapcott – provides compassionate and focussed care at the time of greatest need. If the Government want to support positive people, then it should provide much greater in and out of work disability benefits instead of consigning us to poverty and the employment scrapheap.

  18. vulpus_rex 27 Nov 2010, 9:34pm

    Just to be clear:

    Even before the bank bail out Gordon Brown and Liebour were borrowing one in every four of the pounds he/they spent.

    Let me repear – they were borrowing one in four of the pounds they spent.

    The amount by which expendtidure exceeded their revenue was enormous and had nothing to do with the bank bail out.

    Gordon Brown p*ssed away money as if it grew on trees – the cuts are his fault and his alone.

  19. “Both the Expert Advisory Group on HIV/AIDS and the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV were scrapped in a shake-up of public bodies in October.”

    A lot of us don’t even know what the difference is between these orgs and do we know what these orgs did or will they ever be missed or remember again?

    “slash funding” for the Equality and Human Rights Commission”

    – again what do they do?

    some of us actually think that the money would be better spent by giving it directly to the hospitals, GPs, NHS etc and not to a bunch of administrators in org created by the last lab govt….

    Again LGBT labour get another strategy to trash the tories, this won’t work… If you want us to start supporting you then do something useful and start pushing for marriage equality… it’s you’re only hope. You’re not going to get much sympathy from the public after the extravagent way labour spent money and trashed the ecomony…. As has been pointed out previously not all countries are in such a bad state as the UK…ever wondered why!

  20. Wasn’t it New Labour who presided over the ballooning of HIV rates among gay men during their period in office? Just like the economy, education, immigration, health and everything else they touched, they passed laws that degraded and demoralizes the UK in just about every way. Now they have the impudence to criticise David Cameron for actually lending some vocal support to calling for a more up front approach to HIV prevention, which at last appears to be occurring with the new HIV prevention organization, Status, as well as a more direct approach from GMFA. Shameful!, but oh so typical.

  21. Jo,
    “The debt we currently have to pay down was all incurred from bailing out the banks, which as I said was necessary to avoid depression –”

    This is incorrect we have two parts to the debt problem, actual debt and structural debt. Yes the bank bailout contributed to our actual debt, which we could have done without but it is only the interest on those payments which contribute to annual spending and so the structural debt (how much more we spend over income). The interest on what was borrowed to bailout the banks is less than £15B of the £170B structural debt left by labour. All the cuts we are seeing are to reduce the structural debt so we balance our spending to income. The reason for the rest of the structural debt (£155B) is because Labour bloated public services, quangos and government expenses (media, travel, hospitality etc) to levels we could not afford and tried to cover up the recession by creating jobs in the public sector to mask the collapse of the private sector. What makes matters worse now is that the collapse of the private sector was not as bad but lots of people moved to the public sector and the slack was taken up be grateful immigrants at minimum wage.

    The current cuts take us back to 2007 public sector spending to balance the structural problem which just shows how fast Labour accelerated spending.

    As Health and certain other areas are ring fenced they will remain at 2010 levels so other areas have to be cut back even more to get the average to 2007. That is why HIV groups etc are being hit harder than health in general, but they are not alone and are not being picked on especially.

    Not that I am a Labour supporter, but I cannot see how ballooning rates of HIV can be put at their door, surely people not using condoms is a more likely cause and there is enough evidence to show that rates of condom use have fallen even in areas with good education. We have to find out why and address that, and it will have to be done with less money.

  22. @Dave G: “Not that I am a Labour supporter, but I cannot see how ballooning rates of HIV can be put at their door.”

    Oh, but the ballooning rates most certainly can be put at New Labour’s door when the HIV prevention organizations have openly admitted that they have been working to NHS (i.e. New Labour) diktats and mandates since at least 1999; diktats and mandates that have palpably failed and demonstrably fuelled the speed at which HIV has flourished among gay men. At least the Tories are attempting to reverse the damage caused by using common sense in their urging for a harder hitting approach to tackling the scourge. Sure, they mention the tombstone campaigns of old which were effective and necessary at a time when HIV was a killer and gay men in particular needed to be scared witless into abstaining from behaviours that could end up killing them. Today a different kind of hard hitting campaign is needed to reinforce the very real dangers and life-eroding implications that can and do arise from HIV infection, and hopefully we will see these done properly by the new HIV organization, Status, which surely will put the THT’s woefully lame and inadequate egg shell and THIVK campaigns, among many, to shame. Bring it on!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.