gay

a week is a long time in politics. events move at a frightening pace and the media moves even faster.
it is even faster in the blogosphere (now i don’t for a moment pretend to think that anyone who reads the drivel i put down pays a jot of attention to what i have to say, but it does annoy me when i have a great blog idea and just sit on it to let it fester and then bish bosh bang the world moves on and i miss out on a timely rant and in the end look like some bandwagon jumper – which i am, though sometimes more obviously than others. this blog is an example of two that i could have written at the time, but didn’t.
so budding bloggers and journalists take heed at the moral of this story: if you have something to say – then say it don’t wait, just do it. (other inspirational advertising slogans are available).
there i was contemplating a blog about crispin blunt, the conservative prisons minister, has announced that he is gay. mr blunt has said the move was difficult for his family and hoped for their “understanding and support” but that he was “trying to come to terms with his sexuality”.
one of mr. blunt’s constituency said that the announcement came as a bit of a shock but it was a private matter for him.
and that dear reader is really the nub of it all. who cares if mr. blunt is gay or not gay? i am sure his family do and i am sure that they will resolve and deal with this in a way that suits them as a family. other than that who really cares?
the timing of the announcement (friday august 27th) has given rise to suspicions that the reason mr. blunt has made his shock announcement is that he was to be outed by the press over the weekend.
again i ask why does the press care? is it in the national interest what mr. blunt does or doesn’t do in the privacy of his own home (all the press coverage is quick to point out that there was no one else involved – just mr. blunt having to discuss his sexuality because a newspaper wanted to sell more copies).
now no disrespect to mr. blunt (who, even though he is a conservative, is probably a very nice man) he pretty much a spear carrier for the con/dems, just a jobbing minister who isn’t going to be the first name to pop into anyone’s head if asked to name five members of the coalition cabinet.
there is no national interest in the story, just prurience on the part of the media. the sexuality of a member of parliament should only matter if it affects how they do their job. although he has not voted in accordance with stonewall’s stance (a gay advocacy group) that doesn’t mean he gone out of his way to butch up his voting to hide or compensate for his homosexuality.
surely we have moved beyond caring what someone’s sexuality is and even more so judging them based on that simple fact? apparently not, as we shall see, for a sidebar in the paper reporting the mr. blunt affair hinted that there was another revelation to come and that a married member of the cabinet was trying to get an injunction to stop a ‘gay story’ being published about him.
let me take you back a few more days to the 23rd of august when pictures of a trendy william hague and his new young adviser adorned the papers. lots of comments about the hip casual clothes that william was wearing, including a baseball cap (bringing back recollections of the last time he wore such a hat and looked like a very uncomfortable man being very uncomfortable). although the story was a sly pop at william hague for trying to dress younger, (to be fair he does look odd. it isn’t because he can’t carry off the outfit, he can and he did, he looks odd because he is william hague and he shouldn’t be dressed in anything other than sensible suits). the more important part of the story was the fact that the young chap by his side was a new special adviser (or spad as they seem to be called) to mr. hague, bringing his team of special advisers to three. chris myers, the adviser, was on the payroll for £30k a year.
hold on i thought, wasn’t one of the charges against labour was the numerous special advisers they employed at great cost to the taxpayer. this is outrageous i was going to thunder in the blog i was going to write that night when i got home. i even know how i was going to finish the blog off something along the lines of ‘we always knew what we were going to get with the tories – it was always going to be a case of do as i say not do as i do.’ it would have been a triumphal blog.
i just didn’t write it.
oh well.
let us move back to the present when the shit storm of hague is gay appears in the press. the proof that he is gay? he shared a hotel room with my myers. open and sealed case there sherlock both of them bum bandits for sure.
now let me reiterate here – it wouldn’t matter to me if mr. hague liked to have sex with men while diving off the wardrobe into a large tub of baked beans as he sang the complete whitney houston songbook. it really doesn’t matter. it is a private matter for mr. hague and those nearest and dearest to him. private. private. private.
quite why mr. hague didn't tell people that he was doing his bit to cut down on expenses - that they were bunking with each other and not bunking up.
if the fact that two blokes sharing a room makes them gay in the minds of some people then there are a few sports stars out there who should be shaking their money makers at their local gay bars.
however unlike mr. blunt there is a national interest aspect to mr. hague’s situation: the simple fact that mr. myers is on the government payroll as a special adviser. that is the question mr. hague had to answer, did his friendship influence him into giving him a nice government salary? not whether or not he played hide the sausage with him.
it was the same with david law; it wasn’t that he was involved in a gay relationship that was damaging, but that there were financial improprieties that were attached to that relationship.
in both mr. law’s and mr. hague’s cases the same questions would (or should) be asked in a heterosexual relationship if there were questions of professional wrongdoings.
as i have said a few times in this piece it shouldn’t matter which way the member of parliament swings as long as they do their job properly. sadly check the guidio fawkes blog (the site that broke the story) and you can see there is still a strong streak of homophobia to overcome.
i never thought i would feel sorry for william hague but i do.
(see i resisted the ‘backing him to the hilt’ or ‘standing behind him’ gags. i didn’t wonder if he drank 14 pints when he was with mr. myers… aren’t you proud of me?)