A New Government

Well, it's all over. The coming days will determine whether the deal now struck between the Conservatives and Liberal democrats is a good one or not - and if it is a good one - for whom. David Cameron set out his goals on the steps of 10 Downing Street and I have reproduced his words below. On policy, it seemed a re-run of Cameron's speeches - strong references to family, responsibility and the line that reminds me of a line in House of Cards about "coming together" (the comparison is made in HofC to a brothel slogan).

I would also have liked to see more humility, a recognition of the need for a fusion of policy and a clearer recognition that he failed to win the election. The Lib Dems have 5 seats at the Cabinet table but the Tories have locked the foreign office, defence and the economy. This essentially locks any decision as a Tory one. Quite where Huhne will go on nuclear power for example in his role at energy and environment will be fun for Tories to watch and nerve jangling for progressives.

The deal is now down to personality. The various Tories last night talking of a Tory government suggested they didn't get it - they contineud to view this as a Tory government propepd up by the Lib Dems. It is not. The question is, will Cameron and the Cabinet set them straight? We will get a clearer picture of the policy detail later today (or so the BBC tells us) and only then will we really know where we stand. Will the Tories have shelved their planned repeal of the Human Rights Act? How will sexuality and gender figure in this 5 year policy agenda? If we get further homophobic remarks from Tory MPs will Cameron sack them/remove the whip? Will Lib Dem members of the Cabinet pressurise him if he fails to? Finally, what on earth will Nick Clegg do? DPM without a department seems a massive mistake to me but we shall see.

I'm going to take a little rest for a few days from this blog and I'll be tweeting less so I can catch up with all the work I should have done over the past few days. The blog will revert to more stories about law and sexuality - thanks for staying with me over the election period.

Here's what Cameron said:

'Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to form a new government and I have accepted. Before I talk about that new government, let me say something about the one that has just passed. Compared with a decade ago, this country is more open at home and more compassionate abroad and that is something we should all be grateful for and on behalf of the whole country I’d like to pay tribute to the outgoing prime minister for his long record of dedicated public service.

In terms of the future, our country has a hung parliament where no party has an overall majority and we have some deep and pressing problems – a huge deficit, deep social problems, a political system in need of reform. For those reasons I aim to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

I believe that is the right way to provide this country with the strong, the stable, the good and decent government that I think we need so badly. Nick Clegg and I are both political leaders that want to put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest. I believe that is the best way to get the strong government that we need, decisive government that we need today.

I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service. And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead.

One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes that’s about cleaning up expenses, yes that is about reforming parliament, and yes it is about making sure people are in control – and that the politicians are always their servant and never their masters. But I believe it is also something else. It is about being honest about what government can achieve. Real change is not what government can do on its own – real change is when everyone pulls together, comes together, works together, where we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, to our families, to our communities and to others.

And I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities. One where we don’t ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give. And a guide for that society – that those that can should, and those who can’t we will always help.

I want to make sure that my government always looks after the elderly, the frail the poorest in our country. We must take everyone through with us on some of the difficult decisions we have ahead.

Above all it will be a government that is built on some clear values. Values of freedom, values of fairness, and values of responsibility.

I want us to build an economy that rewards work. I want us to build a society with stronger families and stronger communities. And I want a political system that people can trust and look up to once again.

This is going to be hard and difficult work. A coalition will throw up all sorts of challenges. But I believe together we can provide that strong and stable government that our country needs based on those values – rebuilding family, rebuilding community, above all, rebuilding responsibility in our country.

Those are the things I care about. Those are the things that this government will now start work on doing.

Thank you very much'.

A Progressive Future for Politics *Updated*

I expected that today I'd be changing my banner back to normal (unless a lovely person wants to design and donate me a new one that stretches across the top of my blog), thanking you for indulging my election blogging and telling you the blog would now be 'back to normal'. Yet, here we are, two days after a general election and still no-one knows who will be the new government. Since January I thought we'd have a minority Tory gov. In the 24 hours before the vote, I couldn't decide and thought it would be anything between Cameron short by twenty seats through to a majority of 5/6. I was sort of right but I didn't see it being this messy or wide open. I didn't see the chaos - and still possible legal challenges - to the shambles at polling stations, nor did I see the Lib-Dem election disaster (in terms of seats). It may well be that we end up with a minority Tory gov. The favoured option at the moment is a Lib-Con coalition. I don't buy it.

Yesterday, I watched every speech live and felt Cameron gave Clegg nothing. On the other hand, propping Brown up would not be palatable to the public. This was in my opinion, an election in which Brown was rejected - but not I would suggest, the Labour Party. The Lib Dem vote collapsed as people reverted to choosing between the Tories and Labour. Poor Nick Clegg is now pulling left and right by Cameron/Clegg and his own party (which did make me think of the cartoon above).

People are now speculating on alternatives and I can see a progressive and workable option. I would favour - and think it possible in a way I would have said "never" 48 hours ago - a Lib-Lab-Others coalition. Pull the Greens, SNP, Plaid and Liberals into a coalition with Labour - and a new Labour leader. Constitutionally, that is now feasible - I would have thought David Milliband the obvious choice as coalition leader.

Brown would discharge his constitutional duties by informing the Queen he has a workable government that he can recommend and he would stay on as Labour Party leader -but not have a role in government.

The progressive coalition would promise two referendum's in October with a general election to follow in November (with the election called as soon as the referenda results are announced). Referenda on more power for a Welsh assembly (in Wales), a two stage referendum in Scotland - more power devolved or independence, and across the whole UK, a referendum on changing the voting system to PR - with a specific model of PR on the table. Caroline Lucas would be given the environment and energy portfolio. SNP and Plaid offered the chance to nominate the Wales/Scotland Secretaries of State.

There are those (well, Tories) who argue that only they have a mandate. Let's be clear, most people said no to a Tory government. That's worth repeating - most people said no to a Tory government. The will of most people would be represented in the scenario I outline above.

There are also those (well, Tories) who say that the country can't accept another unelected leader. Cameron would be unelected! Most people rejected him. Coalitions are no place for pure ideals and the above statements are rooted in 'pure politics'. Coalitions are about deals and compromise and a new leader - such as Milliband - leading a coalition would have no less democratic authority than David Cameron. I would suggest they will have more authority.

I doubt we'll get a deal this weekend which means Brown will be left in Downing Street echoing a predecessor (who resigned fearing he was about to die and then regretted it when he didn't), Harold Macmillan who famously (so the Thatcher anecdote goes) repeatedly asked his son "has the call come?".

My 'progressive coalition' scenario outlined above might just be a wild dream but admit it, it doesn't sound as bonkers as it once did does it?

Cameron ditches his gay marriage 'contract' pledge?

David Cameron did an interview with the BBC PM programme earlier today with Eddie Mair. The interview should have been 25mins long but was cut short due to the Ash cloud impacting upon travel arrangements. The interview was very revealing. Take this exert which you can listen on the PM blog here.

EM: Is gay equality a fundamental human right?

DC: Yes

EM: So you'll support gay marriage?

DC: I think that civil partnerships get over the err disadvantage that gay people had of not being able to have the advantages that married couples have - that's why we support civil partnerships and for instance where we've said err let's have tax recognition for marriage, that also applies to civil partnerships

Yes folks - he ducked it. That doesn't sound like a guy "considering" gay marriage as he pledged to do in his 'contract' less than 24 hours earlier does it? It sounds like an argument to do exactly the opposite. It will be interesting to see if any other media picks up on this. I continue to be dismayed at Tory flip-flopping on this issue.

In the same interview, Cameron had no problem making it clear that he disagreed with Ken Clarke on a recent announcement regarding Northern Rock. This is despite Clarke being his Shadow Business Secretary and favoured by the City to reprise his role as Chancellor rather than appoint George Osborne. Cameron continues to be unable to condemn those close to him - including his Shadow Home Secretary int heir homophobic remarks so make of it what you will.

BTW - it's also worth listening out for the 'voluntary'/big society line of questioning.

Tories Equality 'Contract' Analysed

The Tories are trying. Desperate to show they are a changed party as well as the party of change, they are seeking to set out a series of 'contracts' on a range of issues. These are essentially the manifesto re-packaged and re-sold in order to get some press attention among targeted audiences. Thus we learned today via Pink News that the Tories had launched an equality 'manifesto'. On reading the news, I went looking for it - Labour and the Lib Dems published their LGBT manifesto's some weeks ago. I couldn't find it on their site but after sending out a plea on Twitter I was pointed in the right direction by @gigoslurp (well worth a follow).

You can read the document in full here. The Tories have lumped all equality issues together so LGBT forms one bit of a wider document encompassing disability and gender with the central message seeming to be "it's alright, we're not going to hurt you" or as they phrase it: 'make no mistake: the Conservative Party has changed. We have updated our policies, and our candidates better reflect modern Britain'.

Two pages of the twenty six document are devoted to 'LGBT Issues'. The intro page from Teresa May is a page and a half. The LGBT section begins by setting out that 'there are three openly gay members of the Conservative front bench (Nick Herbert – the Shadow DEFRA Secretary, Alan Duncan – the Shadow Prisons Minister, and Greg Barker – the Shadow Climate Change Minister). In addition, there are a number of openly gay Conservative Party parliamentary candidates in winnable seats, including Nick Boles in Grantham and Stamford and Margot James in Stourbridge'.

Strangely, no mention of the Shadow Home Secretary's comments on gay rights and other Tory candidates - most recently Phillipa Stroud and her attempts to 'cure' homosexuals through faith. Cameron has still to comment on this most recent Tory revelation - and detractors will inevitably interpret silence as quiet support at worst and weakness at best.

Pink News goes with the slant that the Tories are promising to "consider" gay marriage. That's not the whole story and is actually miss-leading in isolation.


Let me explain. The first area of policy discussed is civil partnerships and the the section concludes that the Conservatives will 'consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage'. This means firstly, nothing - I consider joining a gym but I'm still an unhealthy so and so who's not set foot inside one for two years. Secondly, if they do change the law it will be to abolish civil partnerships and not create two separate routes. This will disappoint those who would like a range of partnership routes.

Their other commitment under Civil Partnerships states : 'our plans to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system and to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will apply to all couples, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples'.

Well that's a relief. Anything else would be a breach of Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act so essentially it's a pledge not to break the law.

We then move on to a curious commitment on homophobic bullying. They seem to be saying that by allowing teachers to restrain pupils, they will tackle homophobic bullying. Yes, folks, a good clip around the ear will sort out those pansy hating buggers. The additional powers for schools are a slant on a long established schools policy and are a long winded way of saying they will do nothing. I thought with a pretty competent shadow schools minister like Michael Gove, they would have come up with something a little more inspiring.

On inciting homophobic hatred, the Tories state they supported the government. Good to know. No promise of doing anything else if they were elected. Also good to know.

The one seriously welcome policy is to 'amend the law so that men with convictions for consensual gay sex would be able to apply to have those convictions omitted from their CRB certificate. This would only apply to convictions for activity that is now lawful'. It only affects a small number of people but it's welcome nonetheless.

The policy on international campaigning is a little woolly stating: 'we would
use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights'. If I was a Foreign minister I'd look at the new intake of MP's and Chris Grayling in the Shadow Cabinet and laugh. 'Mr Cameron, youz are havingz a laff, no?"

That said, I will welcome a second commitment in the policy (although in my view it is simply abiding by domestic and international human rights law): 'we would change the rules so that gay people fleeing persecution were granted asylum. At the moment gay asylum seekers are often returned to countries with homophobic regimes and told to keep their sexuality a secret'. Quite right.

So there we go. I think the contract, coming as it does, four days before the country goes to the polls is unlikely to change a single vote. Nor does it go far enough in changing perceptions of the Tory party as an orgnaisation with a homophobic core. However, it will do much to re-assure LGBT Tories and enable the Tory party to state it has policies addressing an LGBT audience. It also means that we're talking about something other than another Tory putting their foot in it.

Tory Homophobes Strike Again

I was at a funeral in Manchester this week. Over a buffet and drinks later I found myself talking to a nice couple who coincidentally were from Sunderland. They'd both retired and I was chatting to the husband for around an hour - this and that, the North East Region, his local church etc. All lovely and nice when suddenly he mentioned 'homosexuals' and how much he hated them. He suddenly became a boggle eyed loon and the nice chap I'd been talking to vanished to be replaced by a ranting homophobe.

I can't help thinking that the British public are having a similar experience with David Cameron's Conservative Party. They seem nice. They've changed. Some sensible policies. You have a good long conversation with them. Social Justice. Excellent. Tax benefits that would apply to Civil Partnerships as well as married couples. Jolly good. Then from nowhere someone mentioned homosexuality adn they turn boggle eyed. The Observer and Telegraph today report on Phillipa Stroud. She is the Tory PPC for Sutton and Cheam and as the Director of he Centre for Social Justice (Iain Duncan-Smith's baby) she is prima facie a good sort. Only problem is it turns out she has allegedly founded a church to 'cure' homosexuality in the past. Oh dear. Even Stonewall comes off the fence and criticises the remarks. Must be serious.

This would be bad enough if it didn't follow Chris Grayling saying it was OK to turn away gay people from B&B's if you just didn't fancy poofters staying in your home and Julian Lewis suggesting a different age of consent do to the dangers of homosexuality. In both these earlier cases David Cameron did exactly bugger all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Then along came Philip Lardner - who you say? Indeed, an unknown Tory twit standing in North Ayrshire and Arran who said that 'most Britons considered homosexuality to be “somewhere between unfortunate and simply wrong” and that it should not be supported by the state'. Interestingly, Cameron rode into action and suspended him. So now we know exactly how far you can go. It seems, as far as you like unless you're senior in the party.

The Tories appear to be likely to be the governing party come Friday, but it remains to be seen if they will have a majority. You might agree with many Conservative values. You might, like me at that funeral be thinking "what a nice chap". Think long and hard - do you want someone in power who continues to think you are less than them, that you are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as your straight counterparts? Do you want a Home Secretary - the man responsible for policing, for law and order, who thinks you should be discriminated against when you choose to access good and services?

This Thursday, you have a choice. You decide. Think very carefully.

David Henry and the Salford Alternative

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.

Check out Henry's website here.

*UPDATE 17.05, 22/4/10*

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.

Cameron and the Sacking Challenge

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.

Tories Attack Gay Vote (part 567)

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.

Was it Something I Said?

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...

I'm backing the Liberal Democrats

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!

Tories Unveil Manifesto and Discover Pink Power

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 Right Strikes Back: Grayling, The Telegraph and a Little Local Difficulty in Leicestershire

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!

It's what's on the inside that counts: More LGB troubles for the Tories

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.

It's what's on the inside that counts.

Stonewall, 'Gay' Parliamentary Votes and a Question of Stakeholders

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...

Channeling Reagon: Are you better off?

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.

How will you vote?

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!

Big Boy Lib Dems

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.

Equality Bill & Parliamentary 'wash-up'

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.

Election Special

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.

Election 2010

I'm sure if I was to back any one party on this blog I would come in for criticism off those who I wasn't backing (branded a "typical lefty liberal academic" or "naive right winger taken in by Cameron's smooth talking" depending on which way I go). Given I've been criticised as a lefty liberal on FB and Twitter in recent months you can probably guess which way I'm leaning but then again long standing blog readers will note my various discussions of an earlier life in Tory politics. What can I say? I'm complicated.

I'm not going to say who I'm backing although I have pretty much made my mind up in the last couple of weeks and it was different to what I would have said 6 months ago so who knows what I'll decide by the time of the election (which will probably be May). For most of us, the choice at the next UK general election will be a three horse race - Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The Greens are gaining round and are in many ways the most progressive in addressing the LGBTQ agenda, but let's be honest, they will be lucky to win one seat (I think they will). The Tories remain ahead in the polls by around 9 points (Labour in second place and Lib Dems trailing behind at around 18%) which means there is a strong possibility of a hung Parliament and a second election later this year.

The Labour years saw a mass of legislation that transformed the social landscape - the Civil Partnership Act, Gender Recognition Act, Equality Act and so on. The Human Rights Act was in my view the most important of these. The Conservatives are committed to repealing that Act. I am among the growing number of voices to criticise these various legislative examples and argue for a greater embracing of queer perspectives and (in simple terms) flexibility in how we view gender, sexuality and the state's relationship with individual lives. For example why should straight = marriage and gay = civil partnership? Can we have more flexible and creative forms of union that move beyond the monogamous heterosexist and narrowly defined partnerships of old? Yet, despite this criticism, I also recognise the huge steps forward we have taken as a nation and given a choice between having this legislation and not - I would in pretty much each case choose to have them.

Nonetheless, we could and we should have a public conversation about a more radical agenda that moves issues of sexuality and gender further forward. Yet, in reality, none of the main parties are proposing anything along those lines. We can however look at attitudes on issues such as sex work (or prostitution for Tories and Labour), social welfare reforms targeted at families and the married, alongside attitudes toward gender and sexuality more generally.

These issues are not reasons alone to determine the choice of party (or indeed to choose an independent) but they are the issues this blog will be focusing on in the run up to a general election. It's hard to remember a leader so despised as Brown (Major was seen as weak but liked), the economy is still looking seriously dodgy, the public remain a little sceptical about the Tories and the Lib Dems will have a greater profile than ever before thanks to the leadership debates. It should be an interesting ride.