Class, the UK Labour Party and a Lesson in Legal Reform

MP's are there to represent the will of the people, right? Well, I've just finished reading the excellent latest volume of Chris Mullin's diaries based on the years 1994-1999 (they 3 volumes have been published out of sequence) and I was struck by an entry on Monday 25 January 1999:

'At ten o'clock there was a free vote on equalising the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I voted in favour, which will go down badly with most of my constituents'

Mullin was the MP for Sunderland South between 1987 and 2010 and although he was to eventually make the ministerial ranks, he really made his name as a justice campaigner to free the Birmingham six. He is a happily married man with three kids and often regarded as something of a left winger.

Whilst the New Labour history has been written as being a government and party generous in the reform of gay rights, Mullin's dairies reveal that the left wing MP's did not represent their left wing heartlands. Whilst gay rights has often been cast as a left/right issue, it forgets the working class left-wing ('old Labour') voters who are actually quite homophobic. Mullin makes a calculation that his constituents in working class Sunderland South would not want their MP to vote for this early gay rights measure -but he did anyway. This raises questions about class and whether MP's do and should represent their constituents. If - as Owen Jones - has recently argued, the Labour Party had better represented the views of their constituents, rather than the views of the middle classes and metropolitan elite, they would surely have voted against this measure. I'm doubt that Jones would have wanted that end result, but this diary entry is reminder that truly pioneering reform often comes from ignoring the people. For a democrat, that's an uncomfortable truth to accept.

Despite Mullin's efforts (the Bill was passed with a majority of 207 votes), the House of Lords fought the Bill and it was not until the passing of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act in 2000 that the age of consent was equalised.

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.

Party Conference Season and a Tory Future

As the Political Party Conference season goes into its final week, it’s interesting to note how the two main parties have addressed the sexuality agenda. I have to confess, I didn’t pick anything up from the Lib Dems but anyone wants to add a comment on that stuff, feel free.

Michael Cashman MEP did briefly address the LGBT agenda at the Labour Party Conference, criticising the Tory apology over Section 28 as simply not good enough. His anger is understandable but will not translate to a generation who has never heard of Section 28. Generations of youth can not remember a time before the tolerance that defines the law in relation to aspects of sexuality today. Harriet Harman’s charge was similarly focussed on the Tories – stating they oppose LGBT rights. Of course, it’s an untrue statement but she is right to question the Tory commitment to gay rights and the shape of those rights in coming years if they win the next election. Harman noted Labour’s annual Diversity evening and suggested the Tories couldn’t do anything similar. She also commented on sex work and I’ve addressed that in the previous post.

The Tories will be having a big bash on Canal Street during their conference this week. The event claims to be the first ‘official conference gay night’ but TORCHE (the old Tory campaign group active in the 90s) used to hold fringe gatherings at conferences (maybe that wasn’t official?). This event is further supported by LGBTory – launched at Manchester Pride earlier in the year with the slogan ‘Conservative and Proud’. You would have been shot 13 years ago with T-shirts like that. Pictures of the group reveal two things – one they are young, and secondly, they don’t look the Tory stereo-types of old. This is important in gradually changing the look and feel of a party that is criticised by others for making only small changes at the top of the leadership.

If the Tories do win next year (as now seems likely), there remain big questions about the future shape of a sexuality agenda, potentially over the next decade.. BDSM and fetish continues to be punished by laws and does not appear to have a lobbying group that has made it to the conference circuit. It may well be, that only when that lobby trades in their leather and rubber suits, they will be taken seriously. I don’t see a Tory government moving on that issue but will they be any worse than Labour? The wider issue will be one of attitudes led by legal reform. Contrast the law and attitudes of 1997 with 2009. In 2023, will attitudes have shifted by a similar degree?

First Civil Partnered Labour Councillor Elected

Bit of local news from just down the road in Hartlepool. I had a tweet this morning from LGBT Labour who drew my attention to the election of the first Labour 'civil-partnered' councillor. The full results were:

Christopher Akers-Belcher Labour 532
Cheryl Dunn British National Party 157
Dave Pascoe UK Independence Party 300
Ray Pocklington Conservative 102
Pamela Turnedge Liberal Democrat 166
The turnout was 26.69%.

I hadn't really thought about it properly before but I had just kind of assumed it had already happened. Given this news I was left wondering who was the first civil-partnered councillor and have the Tories all ready got one/more? As the biggest part of local government you would think/hope so.