I'm backing the Liberal Democrats in this election but if I lived in the new Salford & Eccles constituency I'd be backing David Henry. Henry is one of 32 candidates running for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - a group of the left formed at the start of this year. If you know me well you might find this a puzzling choice. I'm not a member of my union and generally disagree with their policy stances and tactics. I would never define myself as a socialist. Why on earth would I therefore urge people to support Henry? Well, there are quite a few reasons. The broad brush answer is he seems one of 'the good guys'. He's up against Hazel Blears - who is the notional incumbent in this new seat. Blears got herself in quite a bit of bother over the expenses scandal. When I see a 'bit', I mean a shit storm of dodgyness.
Henry is a self described 'Human Rights activist' - and a key figure in Outrage offering, in my view, a sensible and progressive approach to sexuality and gay rights. He seems a tireless campaigner and a passionate local figure. He also seems quite fun, bringing a sense of humour and 'real' perspective. For the shallow, he's a bit of a dish. Our politics would be better and brighter with him in Westminster. If you live in Salford & Eccles, give him a shot.
The Daily Politics focused on the TUSC in it's small party slot today. It should be live on the DP site here a little later today.
Thanks to @LawrenceMills who points out that LGBTory chair, Matthew Sephton is also standing in this seat. He seems to have a nice line in spectacles. Shame about the policies.
Pressure is mounting upon David Cameron to sack shadow front bencher, Julian Lewis after his comments about the age of consent. This is a no win situation for David Cameron (even more so than with Grayling). If he sacks him, it gives even more prominence to this story and suggests the Tories haven't changed beyond a few people at the top. The additional dimension this would have is in relation to Grayling. Grayling wasn't sacked (instead it was just briefed that he was unlikely to actually be appointed Home Secretary if the Tories win). If Lewis is won it suggests Cameron disagrees on the age of consent but agrees with Grayling about discrimination by Bed and Breakfast owners. Cameron therefore has no choice but to keep Lewis in place - for now. Gay bloggers myself similarly have no choice but to keep the pressure on Cameron and highlight what are clearly outdated and homophobic attitudes in the top ranks of the Tory Party.
You have to hand it to the Tories. They are trying bless 'em. The Guardian headline this morning is 'Tories to send gay MP to curb EU extremists'. Clearly, the Tories are targeting those floaty liberal orientated voters who have drifted to the Lib Dems in the last week - persuaded by a mixture of the Grayling outburst and the assured performance of Nick Clegg last week. It's a slightly odd story which seems to suggest that by packing off a gay Conservative to speak to some homophobic Polish MEP's he will dramatically transform opinion. Sounds like Nick Herbert has some amazing technique but maybe Cameron could deploy it among his own prospective parliamentary candidates.
The Independent has the story of an written letter from shadow Tory minister Julian Lewis who seems stuck in the equality battles of the last decade, to a constituent last week. The age of consent, as many of you know, was equalised in 2000 by the Labour government - largely a consequence of the Human Rights Act. Julian Lewis has chosen the general election of 2010 to express his opposition to this measure. Curious decision. Lewis argues there should be a different age of consent because of the risk of HIV. He wrote:
"There is a seriously increased risk of HIV infection from male homosexual activity. When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16- and 17-year-olds into front line situations in the armed forces, for example."
He goes on to back Civil Partnerships so that's alright then. Maybe Cameron should be dispatching Nick Herbert a little closer to home.
Last Wednesday night I 'outed' myself as a Lib Dem supporter in this election. I tried to answer concerns that my saying this might disproportionately influence opinion among my students. Well blimey, within 48 hours, the Lib Dems were in first place in the polls. Something I said? Obviously not.
Last Thursday's debate rendered it rather fashionable to be a Lib Dem and has caused a major headache for the Tories and Labour. Tonight's debate is vitally important to see if the Lib Dems can maintain the momentum. Three additional factors need to be considered. First, around 10% of people will get their postal vote early next week (myself included) and will vote before the third debate next week. Second, the deadline for registering has now passed. That means there is a limit on the number of new voters anyone can win over - although the last debate resulted in a registering surge which together with poll evidence suggests the Lib Dems have picked up a lot of 'new' voters. Third, the new policy focus on the Lib Dems is no bad thing as it means they can explain their positions - positions on Trident will be popular if explained. Europe is still a trick one but if Cameron goes after the Lib Dems on this issue he will blow his own party apart and look like just another boggle eyed Tory.
We've seen the parties respond to the Lib Dem surge. Clegg is now having to deal with a lot of mud about payments made into his personal bank account. It seems a little odd but lets see how this pans out. I think the decision to delay publication if documents by Clegg is a mistake. He needs to kill this story before it bleeds any support from any possible bump in the debate tonight.
Meanwhile, the Tories seem to be in more bother over the Tory vote on the very day that they try to reassure gay voters. More on that from me next...
If you're reading this, you're probably not one of my students. My teaching finished before Easter and so the students that this was originally designed for will be busy with their assignments. In any case, this blog has always been a place for comment and views rather than simply posting 'hard facts' (indeed, I largely reject the very idea). Nonetheless, there are always those who say (usually when I'm saying the opposite to what they think) that I shouldn't express views as it might influence others. I hope I do influence others - including my students. That is in the context of recognising my students and other readers of this blog are capable of reaching an independent opinion and my views are not a statement of monolithic truth.
So, that out of the way, I'm now saying that I am backing the Liberal Democrats in the forthcoming general election. Going off the few results on my top poll - most of you are backing them too. They seem the right party for me across all the issues. When I watched the launch today I was convinced Vince Cable should be chancellor.
In terms of the LGBT policies, the Lib Dems have launched an LGBT manifesto (Labour are due to launch one tomorrow evening) and it can be viewed here. Pink News scrutinises this development and raises some good questions which you can read here. The Lib Dems have been consistently strong on issues pertaining to law and sexuality and on gender. The main argument put forward for not voting Lib Dem - even when you agree with their policies - is that they are not likely to win. It's a fair comment but look at the polls - they all point to the Lib Dems being the king makers in this election. The more you vote Lib Dem, the more Lib Dem policies can be a reality in twenty odd days time. It's an exciting prospect.
Don't panic - this doesn't mark me beginning a Lib Dem drone. I'm not a party member and I will continue to say what I think rather than spout a party line, but you deserve to know where I'm coming from when I write. Finally, if you've not voted in the poll on the top right - do!
In between election watching I'm trying to get the bulk of some work on barebacking out of the way (and pull a journal edited collection together) so I have the whole summer to write my book. I tend to do things out of order and work rather like a butterfly with a bit here and a bit there rather than write an article from start to finish. Here's the abstract for the article I'm working on and which will be presented as a paper at the Mediated Sexualities Research event in a couple of weeks. I've been increasingly absorbed with this work over the last year or so and it is rather all consuming.
Anyone in the region want to come along - feel free - just let Clarissa know (and it costs a bargainous zilch). I also aim to present this stuff at the 2011 Law and Society event in San Francisco (presenting my queer theory and cyber ethnography stuff at the Chicago event next month). Here's the draft abstract - let me know what you think:
'Paul Morris cuts a controversial figure in the world of queer pornography. The San Francisco based Director and founder of Treasure Island Media (TIM) remains at the centre of a company that seeks to celebrate, highlight and explore the ‘raw’ sexual experience whether through bareback anal sex, intense oral sexual encounters and cascades of semen.
Morris’ films shock, excite and sell. The recent emergence of a ‘spin off’ website called Ryan Sullivan’s Island produced by TIM employee and film-maker, Ryan Sullivan claims to offer viewers an insight into the hitherto relatively secretive world of Treasure Island Media as well as insights into the personal journey of Ryan Sullivan.
This article seeks to consider the function and significance of Ryan Sullivan’s Island and explore TIM in the wider context of pirate utopias and crypto-anarchism'.
The news is dominated this evening by the the Tories and their weighty manifesto whilst a poll in the Times tomorrow morning puts the Tories just 3% of Labour - within the margin of error. I have to confess I've not managed to work through the Labour and Tory manifestos yet but Pink News points out that the Conservative manifesto lacks the commitment to strike out the convictions of men for historic offences - essentially those men prosecuted prior to 1967 for buggery offences. Peter Tatchell has suggested this shows gay rights were an 'afterthought'. My reaction is more - "you're not seriously surprised?".
Sunday saw Tatchell and a host of activists congregate outside Tory HQ in a flash mob in response to Chris Grayling's B&B remarks (he seems to have been in hiding since). Prior to the flash mob taking place George Osborne agreed to meet with Tatchell and they discussed 'gay rights'. Tatchell promised Osborne on gay marriage and Osborne promised to 'consider it'.
To be fair to the Tories, they also announced proposals on homophobic bullying which currently has a high profile on the front of the Conservative website. Read the full proposals here. They all seem fairly sensible to me.
The response to the Grayling slip does seem to have extracted some victories and Peter Tatchell along with all those who turned out at the weekend are to be congratulated. This election continues to be a roller coaster of excitement but the gay vote is now a high profile issue.
The Chris Grayling story is the gift that just keeps giving. Just when you think the Tories are going to move on from it, back it comes. The Telegraph site carries a piece by Ed West today called 'The Conservatives anti-gay? Have you actually seen a Tory social event?' His central argument is that the Tory party is very gay friendly - and points to local Tory social events in Haringey (why does this make me think of the Private Eye sketch 'It's Grim Up North London'?) as an example of Tory modern gay-friendliness. The central thrust seems to be "I have been invited to Tory party events by gay tories (they told me on Facebook) and they all seem a bloody nice lot". He goes on to state: 'To put it in terms that will annoy Guardian readers as much as possible, any group of people who increase house prices in one’s area are going to be acceptable to conservatives.'
Let me be clear, I don't think that every Tory party member or candidate is homophobic. I'm fairly sure the Labour Party also has homophobic members too (can't see it in the Lib Dems but I could be wrong), but people are concerned about policy. Those who attack Grayling's line are not, as that twit Daniel Hannan asserted at the weekend ,'grandstanding' - rather this is to challenge the assertion by Cameron that the Tory party has changed. For Hannan, the Grayling story isn't about homophobia but rather enabling people to do what they want in their own homes. He wrote: 'to pretend that Chris’s remarks make him a bigot is ridiculous'. So if we had a Tory candidate who said they had 'sympathy' with a B&B owner who wanted to exclude blacks does anyone seriously think that Candidate would even be a member of the Tory party once that quote appeared in the press? Of course not. So if we treat sexuality differently to race we are putting an individuals sexuality in a different box. We are accepting that the law can deal with one category of individuals differently from another. One is superior to another. That seems a pretty big deal to me.
On to North West Leicestershire and the Tory candidate Andrew Bridgen who the Leicester Mercury reports as having "considerable sympathy" with bed and breakfast owners who wish to turn away gay couples. The comments apparently follow a visit by Chris Grayling. Oh yes, the story just keeps running...
Finally, I'm sorry this blog seems a bit Tory bashing as of late but I can only work with the material I'm given!
The Independent carries an important piece today about one of the 'founders' of LGBTory. The story isn't exactly as it first seems but it remains a good indicator of the issues David Cameron still faces. According to the Independent, Anastasia Beaumont-Bott (solid working class name), the first chairman of the LGBTory group has now 'spoken out' about the Conservatives and revealed she is now backing Labour. As the piece reveals, she actually jumped ship 18 months ago so this isn't a result of the Grayling cock up -but she claims that is the reason she's now speaking out and twisting the knife. In truth, it's the first opportunity she's had - nobody would have cared in normal circumstances. So now she gets a bit of publicity. Nonetheless, some of her remarks are rather revealing. Take this quote:
"It's been in my head for a while to speak out, but the Chris Grayling issue has made me realise that a year-and-a-half ago, I was someone who was standing up and telling gay people that they should vote for Mr Cameron. But I became disillusioned after meeting one too many people in that party who were not like what the leader was saying the party was about. If you make a comment like [those made by Mr Grayling], you should be out. This isn't a question of party lines – it is disgusting. I don't like doing this to Mr Cameron. I like him, but the insides of his party are not what the people are led to believe."
Here, Beaumont-Bott is addressing what I suspect is actually a fear of many people - and something the Labour Party have already tried to make something of. Who's behind David Cameron? Who are these Tory candidates that will fill the green benches? Are they really all that cuddly and 'enlightened'. The argument of Beaumont-Bott and Labour is "hell no" or perhaps "beware of Tories bearing national insurance gifts".
When Beaumont-Bott says "if you make a comment like [those made by Mr Grayling], you should be out", she is spot on. Sacking your Shadow Home Secretary at the start of a political race would have been messy and suggested that the Tories had not completely changed but it would also have allowed David Cameron to show his mettle and send a clear signal that such views are not tolerated, that the Tory party has reformed itself inside and out. Cameron could have asserted that reform runs through the Tory party like Blackpool runs through it's iconic rock -and sounded plausible. He didn't, and it seems fair to conclude that it doesn't.
A former student of mine from back in the day, and now all round good guy has put together an interesting piece on his new blog in response to a Stonewall press release that seeks to highlight how MPs have noted on 'gay issues'. Check out his full blog post here as it includes a useful graph he's put together. Mygayvote does a similar sort of thing with the data and represents them as party stats. Check that out here.
The trouble with this sort of thing is that it is always going to be a broad brush approach. Vote against the Equality Bill? Well you must be against equality. Debates about specific clauses are then lost on the vast majority of the public but to be fair to Stonewall, they do spell out on their webpage the specific votes they looked at and why. They were as follows:
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2009 19 March 2007 The final key vote to approve important anti-discrimination protections covering businesses and public services.
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill - Amendment 21 20 May 2008 On the issue of removing the ‘need for a father’ requirement in fertility clinics. It treated lesbian couples unfairly.
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill - Amendment 12 20 May 2008 A second vote on the issue of removing the ‘need for a father’ requirement in fertility clinics. It treated lesbian couples unfairly.
Criminal Justice & Immigration Bill - Incitement to Hatred 9 January 2008 On the recently introduced incitement to hatred offence on grounds of sexual orientation.
Coroners and Justice Bill - Incitement to Hatred 24 March 2009 A second vote on the recently introduced incitement to hatred offence on grounds of sexual orientation.
Equality Bill - Third Reading 2 December 2009 The final House of Commons vote on the Equality Bill.
Equality Bill - Division 12 – Religious employers 2 December 2009 A vote on the extent of exemptions for religious employers.
They then awarded points to each MP on the basis of:
2 points if they voted in support of Stonewall’s position – for example, in support of the ‘goods and services’ protections.
1 point if they didn’t vote. They abstained or ‘double voted’ – voting both for and against.
0 points for a vote against Stonewall’s position – for example, they voted against the Equality Bill
Shock horror, the Tories bombed. Stonewall have already demonstrated their worth, or I would argue, potential worth, by producing a list of questions that they suggest you should ask of your MP or PPC and a set of (very short) demands for the political parties. Crucially, these are something they have previously shared with the aprties so it's a good example of how Stonewall can affect change rather than simply position itself. That said, the 'demands' - their word - are to put it mildly, tame. The final one: 'Beacon to the World' is vomit inducing New Labour twaddle. Do I want Britain to be the most progressive nation when it comes to the law and our attitudes towards sexuality? You bet, but I find the lack of ambition by Stonewall depressing at times.
It would be fair to throw the question back to me - "so what should they talk about?". Well, why not advocate a debate about the nature and form of marriage, the role of religion and the state in partnership rights? Massive themes to be sure, huge cans of worms but let's not fear debate, let's embrace it. Let's also have an open debate about the huge variances in policing towards sexuality up and down the country - an issue that affects gay men and women every day. Let's revisit the gay blood ban. Let's also seek to re-connect politicians and groups like Stonewall with the needs and desires of ordinary gay men and women rather than a political and academic elite (which I am inevitably part of). That should get you started...
The Tories have so far been trying to channel the Reagon spirit of "are you better off?". This was Reagon's famous statement during the Carter/Reagon Presidential debate in 1980. Together with "there you go again", these lines helped to position Reagon on the side of the popular majority - or what Nixon had earlier termed 'the silent majority' (compare with Camerons 'great ignored'). When The Tories say "do you want five more years of Gordon Brown", or as Hesletine put it the other day on the BBC, "Thirteen more years"; they are pushing the change agenda but their basking in the miss-fired Labour ad (since re-dubbed 'fire up the Quattro) is to suggest a return to a better age. The trouble with this is that is you were that smalltown boy in the 1980's, early 90s, made famous in the Jimmy Somemrville track of the same name, the Tories don't suggest a golden age but rather a return to an age of discrimination and state sponsored homophobia. It suggests a time in which schools couldn't talk about homosexuality for fear of 'promoting it', homosexuals were 'pretend' families (a position I suspect many Tory PPC's would still hold true), there was a different age of consent for gay men whilst civil partnerships, equal access to goods and services, adoption rights and so on were all the stuff of fantasy. Thirteen years of Labour made them a reality and as someone whose never voted Labour in my life, I could hardly be cast as a great supporter of the current administration. Take a look at the original music track below.
So when you go into that voting booth or complete your postal ballot, remember that the small town boy still exists. He still faces many challenges from homophobic bullying in school through to conservative social attitudes. There continue to be legal battles such as the 'gay blood ban', and other issues such as public sex need addressing. That smalltown boy probably can't vote in this election but he and thousands like him are counting on you and me to make the right choice for him. The recent Grayling blunder suggests a Tory party that, despite the growth in openly gay PPC's still has a long way to go. Political junkies can watch the Reagon clips below.
I've always assumed that my readers are liberal leaning types (apart from my students) and so I'm curious to see what your voting intentions are. I've posted a poll on the top right of this blog for you to indicate your preferences. I've tried to include everyone but apologies if I've missed something crucial!
The Liberal Democrats are probably the most 'progressive' in their policies and attitudes in relation to gender and sexuality. Whether that be in terms of 'gay rights, attitudes and laws regarding censorship, pornography, sex work or what we sometimes call 'alternative lifestyles'. This election represents a major opportunity for them to raise their game and boost their profile. For me, their equal billing in the three leadership debates is a massive coup but I worry that Nick Clegg is going to make a hash of it. As his appearance on the BBC Today programme this morning reminded us, he's peddling rapidly to the right and it's easy to portray him as 'Cameron light'. His constituency in Sheffield Hallam was Tory in 1997 until the then Lib Dem candidate Richard Allan took the seat for the Lib Dems (the constituency had previously been briefly Liberal between 1916 and 1918) and having lived there and been a school governor in the constituency I would say attitudes are Liberal/Tory. Yet, Nick Clegg shouldn't just be playing for his home audience now. If Charles Kennedy was still leader, he would in all likelihood ensure a major shift in support via these leadership debates with his popular charm and distinctly more left-wing policy approach.
Yet, regardless of which leader they have, they will now be exposed to more scrutiny than ever before. Presenter, journalist and Private Eye star, Andrew Neil has blogged this morning that: 'There are signs that the Lib Dems are not yet comfortable with this new level of scrutiny', and concludes with typical Neil chutzpah that: 'I'm sure they'll welcome being up there with the big boys'. He is of course right, the Lib Dems deserve this scrutiny and deserve to be taken seriously. That means the flippant mocking of the Lib Dems that presenters often engage in should also be toned down and the Lib Dems should be treated as presenters would the Tories or Labour.
Harriet Harman tweeted a short time ago that: 'Equality Bill through House of Commons last night. Tories said they wouldn't implement socio-economic clauses. Tories unchanged'. This is part of our strange Parliamentary 'wash-up' game in which Bills currently before parliament end up going through a negotiation between the parties to see what can be passed now a General Election has been called. The final text doesn't seem to be on Parliament's website yet, but I'll try and post a bit more comment on it later when (I hope) the site is updated.
Admit it - you missed me? No, well let me hang on to the illusion that you did so I can justify my return to this blog for the election period. Yes, my publisher will probably be chopping my balls off and wearing them for earrings as a result of this latest work displacement but so be it. It's a general election and I'm a political junkie. I'm aiming to consider the general election over the coming weeks with a particular focus on law and sexuality. I've even tweaked my blog banner in tribute - oh yes, no expense spared.
When I started thinking of doing this I was slightly worried that there might not be enough stories but then I forgot that the Tories had Chris Grayling as Shadow Home Secretary. Commentators repeatedly say he won't get the job post election and that's probably a bit of naughty briefing. In truth, we don't know until after May 6th - assuming Cameron wins - a result far from certain.
He managed to drop his leader in it when he let it be known that whilst he accepted the law on the equal provision of goods and services (nice to know), he did think that it shouldn't really apply to those who run a bed and breakfast as this was their home and they shouldn't have to have nasty homos shagging themselves with majestic zeal on their God fearing mattresses (I may be re-phrasing slightly). It looks like the comments have already cost the Tories support among those who identify as gay. Frankly, I'd be dismayed if it didn't but there we go. Grayling's remarks revealed a man who considers gay men and women as a lower class of some sort. If he had said the same of someone black, he would (as Peter Tatchell has said) have been sacked.
Cameron (for it is he) had the opportunity to put Grayling in his place - turn the situation to his advantage and highlight how the Tories have changed. He flunked. He flunked and then some. He refused to condemn the remarks and other Tory spokesmen/members of the Shadow Cabinet have followed suit. It must be a terrible sight for progressive Tories. Today, at Cameron's launch he managed to further bugger matters up. He'd already leaked the speech he would make as Gordon Brown travelled back from seeing her Maj at the Palace. He spoke without notes so it's possible that he genuinely forgot one phrase from his speech but given the rest seemed spot on, such a view would be at best 'kind'. Cameron was supposed to say:
"We're fighting this election for the great ignored. Young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight. They start businesses, operate factories, teach our children, clean the streets, grow our food and keep us healthy – keep us safe."
He missed off "gay, straight". Unfortunate. You can watch the full thing below:
I was then driving home this evening and listening to the PM Programme on Radio 4. William Hague was on and got some good questioning on the Grayling story so it's still running for the Tories. This is good to see - it should be an issue for them, and they need to resolve this. The left leaning group Compass has a petition which I've signed and I hope you will too, regardless of the party you are thinking of supporting. It's available here.
William Hague also used an interesting line talking about the Tories as the most 'family friendly'. I suspect this is a phrase and an agenda that I'll be discussing a little more in the days and weeks ahead.
It's going to be an interesting campaign and a fascinating election. I hope you'll comment on my posts and continue your interactions on Twitter, Facebook and all the rest of it. You can see Nick Clegg launching the Lib Dem campaign below but I can't find an unedited video of Brown (if you find a link please post it in comments) and I'll add it here.
I'm backing the Liberal Democrats in this election but if I lived in the new Salford & Eccles constituency I'd be backing David Henry. Henry is one of 32 candidates running for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - a group of the left formed at the start of this year. If you know me well you might find this a puzzling choice. I'm not a member of my union and generally disagree with their policy stances and tactics. I would never define myself as a socialist. Why on earth would I therefore urge people to support Henry? Well, there are quite a few reasons. The broad brush answer is he seems one of 'the good guys'. He's up against Hazel Blears - who is the notional incumbent in this new seat. Blears got herself in quite a bit of bother over the expenses scandal. When I see a 'bit', I mean a shit storm of dodgyness.
