Six years ago, I did a column on the comparative situations of four centre-right parties in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. How has the intervening period affected their stances toward LGBT rights? Since 2005, Britain and New Zealand have elected centre-right governments, while Canada's Harper Conservatives seem to be succumbing to incumbency fatigue. As for Australia, the Liberal Party still appears to be labouring (...) under the social conservative authoritarian legacy of John Howard. This has led to mixed outcomes in each country. Although Australia's Liberals almost won the 2010 Australian federal election, this was due to specifically Australian factors. The Australian Labor Party is bedevilled by factions, whose conflicts led to sabotage of Julia Gillard's federal election campaign. Added to which, Queensland and New South Wales voters might well have been turned off by their unpopular long-term ALP State Governments. In any case, Tony Abbott and his Liberal colleagues may have gained seats, but not enough to reclaim government, due to Gillard's canny negotiation with three Independent Members of the House of Representatives. Abbott is a Howard era relic and one suspects that he will be deposed as soon as the Liberals choose an heir apparent who might be able to roll Gillard. Meanwhile, the Greens control the Australian Senate balance of power now... which promises some degree of social liberal thaw, glacial though it might seem. The Australian federal same-sex marriage ban may be abandoned due to Gillard's complex electoral situation. In Canada, the Harper Conservatives face a paradoxical situation. They are an incumbent minority government within an FPP House of Commons and hold office during a global recession, so they have to tread carefully. Canada has already provided inclusive adoption reform at the provincial level (except for the indigenous-led Nunavut province in the far northeast), while at the federal level, it introduced same-sex marriage proper during the Martin Liberal administration. Bill C-389 is about to add gender identity discrimination to the prohibited grounds within the Canada Human Rights Act, Canada's federal antidiscrimination law. As for the Harper Conservatives, Stephen Harper has made it clear that abortion and LGBT rights are off the table in terms of measures that might rock the boat. Granted, that hasn't stopped it from provocative measures like refusing to fund drug harm minimisation and risk reduction programmes, attacking federal tax credits for television and media productions, and voting against Bill C-389 (albeit with four virtuous exceptions), as well as opposing sex work decriminalisation. However, polls seem to indicate that the Harper Conservatives would fail to win minority government, although neither would the Liberals, the largest Opposition party. In Britain, the Conservatives didn't win government in their own right, either. David Cameron took the party to the left in terms of its inclusiveness and engineered an almost unprecedented coalition with the Liberal Democrats, which ended thirteen years of Labour power. Unfortunately, truculent militant fundamentalists and social conservatives seem to despise him, especially if they're columnists for the Daily Telegraph. However, the coalition has meant that Cameron can afford to ignore such elements remaining within the Conservative caucus. One is reminded of Jenny Shipley and National's social liberal contingent here in the nineties. For example, Cameron now seems to be implementing one of his election promises, which is removing former consensual 'sexual offences' which have been overtaken by recent liberal reforms from police and official records. However, the Blair administration did most of the leg work in turns of age of consent equality, antidiscrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, civil partnerships and adoption reform, so outlier issues like the blood donor ban for gay men are the only ones left. In New Zealand, the National Party won power in 2008, after three terms in Opposition. John Key appears to be a centre-right social liberal and has said that prostitution law reform, civil unions, liberal abortion access and Section 59 abolition are all here to stay. Moreover, his government passed legislation that led to the abolition of the destested 'provocation defence' within criminal law, although this was a popular move, given its use in the case of straight female murder victim Sophie Elliot. However, I'd characterise the current government as one of inertial conservatism. It won't turn back the clock, but it won't initiate any intentionally progressive legislation either. However, as the Manukau antisoliciting bill indicates, slow incremetal erosion of liberal legislation may be quite another matter. This doesn't mean that if tactical constituency voting deprives us of ACT and United Future, then Labour, the Greens and Maori Party might be able to outflank National's social conservatives over remaining LGBT issues like inclusive adoption reform and the addition of gender identity to our own Human Rights Act. Social conservatives are an ambivalent constituency for the National Party. From vitriolic anti-Labour outbursts against the Clark administration, the Christian Right has begun to adopt a more chilled and distant stance toward the Key administration. Section 59 Repeal and opposition to binding citizens referenda have started to drive a wedge within the relationship between National and social conservatives. ACT is more populist and opportunist on such matters, but given its concurrent factional infighting, it may not be assured of even retaining Epsom, its pinion constituency seat. New Zealand First is more socially conservative, but it is out of Parliament and may be unable to return. The fundamentalist Kiwi Party microparty is unelectable. As for Key himself, he attends both Family First "Family Forums" and Big Gay Outs, but is careful not to promise any concrete legislative concessions to either LGBT communities or social conservatives alike. This suggests that unlike the US Republican Party, social conservatives aren't seen as a core National Party social constituency, and social conservatives may be seen to be narrowly focused on their own small range of obsessions rather than pivotal centre-right concerns like limited government spending. However, might National's New Right welfare privatisation and retrenchment plans lead to some reconciliation, as has occurred in the United States? Watch this space. Craig Young - 6th January 2011