There probably would have been progress whoever was in power, but it would be churlish not to agree!

Given the number of senior gay Tories (particularly in London) the rather wonderful thing is that the Conservatives can’t now go in for gaybashing without incurring a substantial amount of thoroughly merited friendly fire. I’ve no doubt that the old school grassroots Tories are still prone to homophobia, but it’s unacceptable in public now.

Perhaps New Labour’s great legacy here is allowing the perennial ranks of secretly gay Tories to live a more honest and less stressful life.

You’re right, Claude. These things could well be Labour’s best legacy.

It’s true that it’s very easy not to notice the massive strides in public opinion and legislation in even the last 10 years. We may be too close to see it clearly now but i’m convinced that future generations will see our time as a major turning point on this issue, equal to – if not bigger than – the 1967 Sexual Offences Act

I think cjcjc is right, that it would be churlish not to agree – but I also think the history of the gay rights movement is undervalued by the title: this is not just New Labour’s achievement. As the article points out, before there ever was a New Labour, the Labour Party was under assault for ‘promoting’ homosexuality. The “loony” wing of Labour helped fund gay pride celebrations and other identity-politics orientated groups, under the auspices of the GLC and so forth. I’d say, on that basis, that this is Labour’s best legacy – not just New Labour.

I think the most noticeable change is in public opinion. When Section 28 was being repealed and the age of consent was being lowered the polls were showing majorities against. Nowdays I suspect people would be less hostile.

That said while there is undoubtedly much greater tolerance, that does not necessary equal approval.

I think everyone’s old-school are prone to anti-gay attitudes. I don’t think its too much of a party political thing, so much as a generational thing.

At the risk of engaging in whatabouttery, it might be worth remembering that as late as 1985, Labour were still infiltrated by shills for some of the most violent ideologies the world has ever seen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_2528000/2528725.stm

Perhaps we could all just agree that some pretty silly things were happening during the 80s? Personally, I just hope that come 2030, mainstream politicos are embarrassed at their early noughties support for drug prohibiton and silence on the institutional bullying of rather a lot of other sexual minorties: http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/09/social-work-no-subs-allowed.html

Far better to be embarrassed at previous folly than that the changes never happen.

I agree with Dave Semple re: this being more than just a New Labour achievement. And I strongly take issue with this:

…one change that took place during New Labour’s tenure is here to stay: Britain’s approach towards sexuality… Barring some unexpected turn, those changes appear now firmly entrenched within British society and no-one but the most hardcore of Tories could dream of publicly campaigning in favour of sexual discrimination. If anything, most politicians are aware that endorsing something like Section 28 or the unfortunate “gay plague” rhetoric today would probably herald electoral suicide.

IMO you are far too complacent about the prospects for negative pushback against LGBT equality under a Tory government. Part of the threat comes from the likelihood that many further needed changes will not happen, e.g. that there will not be the will or the commitment to eradicating homophobic bullying in schools or the workplace. But there are also threats to rights already conferred. E.g., Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice is hostile to the idea of lesbian partners of women with children being recognised as parents. The Centre thinks this is an ‘anomaly’, and that the status and rights of these parents ought to be pruned back. The CfSJ is pretty influential in Tory circles. And there is also Nadine Dorries, who is another high-profile Conservative opponent of lesbian partners being recognised as parents. Are you really willing to bet that there wouldn’t be enough support among Tory MPs to change the law on this issue?

As for civil partnership, even if the legislation is itself secure (and I do not deny that), there is plenty of scope for the Tories to insist that civil parnterships ought to be treated as a poor relation to heterosexual marriage in, e.g., the tax and benefit systems (incidentally, this is one reason why civil partnership is not an acceptable substitute for marriage equality). Cameron has given mixed messages on the question whether proposed tax breaks for married couples would also apply to civil partners. Again, the threat to equality is non-negligible.

There is a big threat now to LGBT equality from those who say that, basically, the battle is won, and the advances made are here to stay. Too many gay people are already coming round to voting Tory because they believe that. Let’s not add to the false impression that this is true here on this site as well.

Agree with the article. But. There’s no point accusing the Tories of being homophobic now. All your examples from the 80s are terrible, I agree, but the past is the past. There are billions of gays in the party now so it would be insane for the party to be anything other than gay friendly. And if we insist on raking up the past, I could give you just as many examples of racism and sexism from the Labour of the 70s.

Two things:

“just think that twelve years didn’t go exactly in vain and that sexual equality”

So we’re there then are we? All done and finished?

Clearly we’re not when consensual S&M can still land you in prison (no, not a jibe, simply a truth, it ain’t over yet).

“but it would be churlish not to agree!”

Allow me to be churlish. Most of these changes have been happening everywhere in the Western democracies over the past 15 or so years. Good grief, even under the Bu$$hitler regime gay marriage got started over there.

1980s court case in Georgia went to the Supreme Court, was sodomy (in the American sense this also means oral sex) punishable? Yes….that precendent overturned in the 90s (I think 90s, might have been more recent).

Not trying to be too churlish….but I do think there are societal waves that governments end up riding rather than directing or creating at times.

@ 7 Nick. *At the risk of* engaging in whatabouttery? Mate you are well and truly there. Incidentally, those shills for that violent ideology, they were and are among the foremost proponents of equal rights for gay people, gay couples and so on. Their ideologues were spouting equality decades before this New Labour government.

I have to kind of agree with cjcjc. Was this Labour’s doing…no doubt they helped…or was it more to do with society and culture naturally evolving?

#12
In the article I do underline that perhaps culture played a part and that anti-gay crusades would have possibly ended anyway. We will never know for sure. What was striking is that, at the height of Tory gay-bashing in the 1980s and 1990s, society was already ‘evolving’ and that deeply homophobic legislation was being implemented right when household names like Boy George, George Michael, Jimmy Somerville, Elton John, Julian Clary and many other celebrities were becoming accepted as part of the mainstream.

I remember rows with some workmates, proper homophobic geezers who’d rant at faggots and then tell you all about how amazing Freddie Mercury or Elton John were.

What I mean is, culture changing did not signify legislative changing back then. In fact, the extreme opposite happened.

I still maintain New Labour was crucial. Parliamentary changes didn’t happen because Big Brother’s Nadia ordered it, but because Labour MP made it their own mission to rid Britain of medieval sexual discrimination in spite of the tons of stick they were getting.

It’s all very well that Michael Howard now sheepishly accepts Section 28 was bad, but as recent as 2003 both him and David Cameron still voted to keep it.

This is a cultural battle Labour won. Perhaps the only one that Labour won in such a clear manner and with little watering down .

#10 Tim Worstall
“I do think there are societal waves that governments end up riding rather than directing or creating at times.”
Well, i don’t know how short your memory is, but until Section 28 was abolished the press at large were going for the jugular and attacking Labour from all sides. I also remember billionaire Brian Souter in Scotland investing major funds on his campaign to “keep Section 28″. What I remember vividly, is that Labour stood still. They didn’t flinch. They could have, like they did on everything else, from tuition fees to the Euro to rhetoric on immigration to Heathrow runways to trade union legislation…you name it. They didn’t on sexual equality.

Incidentally, I wonder where UKIP stood on Section 28 and the Age of consent back then? Maybe you could enlighten us?

#8 Soho Politico
Of course the danger is of being too complacent. Absolutely. But I also see little point in crowing all the time. The fact itself that the Tories now feature a number of prominent openly LGB MPs would make a return to their homophobic 80s and 90s days a touch more unlikely.

“Incidentally, I wonder where UKIP stood on Section 28 and the Age of consent back then? Maybe you could enlighten us?”

Back then I’ve no idea. But in the recent elections I was very proud indeed to get (OK, I was only in the press office but you get the thought) an out and proud lesbian elected to the Euro-Parliament and we damn near got our gay ex-paratrooper in in the NE as well.

I do recall when in the press office being asked (by Pink News) what our LGBT policy was and informing them that we didn’t have one, that our policy was not to have one. What consenting adults do is not politics nor a matter for politicians.

@ Claude: sure, the Tories have some prominent LGBs. What does that prove? What they have is some gay Uncle Toms, frankly. Iain Dale, for instance, spends much of his time expressing admiration for people that are enemies of LGBT equality: Anne Widdicombe, Norman Tebbit, Roger Helmer, etc. In fact, when Helmer made his outburst about homophobia being an invention of the left, Dale served the very useful (to the Tories) function of putting out a post with the sentiment ‘well, we may disagree about gay rights, but we’re all in this big tent party together’, thereby sending the message that, if prominent gay Tory Iain Dale is OK with it, it must just be a storm in a teacup.

In general, the Tories’ late conversion to gay rights has come with some pretty transparent tokenism. Let’s not feed the Conservative-spun line that all is now well in the party just because they have some gays.

What they have is some gay Uncle Toms, frankly.

I have no particularly strong views on LGB issues, but that’s a pretty damn unpleasant thing to say. Do you call black Tories Uncle Toms as well?

#15
Soho Politico,

I do respect your opinion, but please do read people’s comments before you reply. I just wrote that as recent as 2003 both him and David Cameron still voted to keep Section 28 , obviously meaning that Cameron’s (and Howard’s, for instance) conversion doesn’t look terribly genuine. How am I “feeding the Conservative-spun line that all is now well in the party just because they have some gays”?

The Tory party is still right-wing, and I don’t buy for a second the so-called new ‘cuddly’ image amd not just on LGBT issues.

However, for goodness’ sake, the whole political spectrum has come a long way and this is undeniable and a victory for the left. This is what I’m saying. From loonie-lefties in the 80s because of Ken Livingstone’s pro-LGBT work in the GLC to all three major parties accepting sexual equality.

Then, of course never say never and all that, keep your guard up and all that, but at present, it looks like sexual equality is here to stay, the same way women’s vote is and other issues that previously seemed unwinnable.

#14 Tim Worstall
Fair play to you, I must say.

But…erm..in 2004, UKIP London mayoral candidate Frank Maloney said he would not be campaigning in the borough of Camden because there are “too many gays” and also “I don’t want to campaign around gays…I don’t think they do a lot for society.” (BBC link here).

Also, in the European Parliament, the UKIP have allied themselves with the League of Polish Families, an openly homophobic party.
Just for the record, that is.

@16: no I certainly wouldn’t. First because it is an accusation that is only levelled by one member of a group at another, and since I am not black it would be inapposite. Second and, if anything, more importantly, because I think it would be an unfair and offensive misrepresentation of the position of black people in the party. Transposed to the gay context, I am gay, so I’m part of the group that can invoke the accusation, if anyone can. As for whether it’s fair to invoke it, I certainly think, as I argued, that there are gay people in the Conservative Party who have put party loyalty before LGBT rights, and been craven apologists for the anti-gay tendencies of fellow Tories. Insofar as those are the actions I understand the criticism to be of, on first sight I think it is appropriate here. But I do concede that the politics of the use of this term is highly complex and fraught. And so, insofar as I admittedly used it in a pretty spur of the moment way, and cannot claim to be an expert on all the multifarious connotations that it has, I’ll happily retract in case you, or others, continue to have objections.

@Claude: I agree with you to a large extent – you’re right, of course, that we’ve come a long way, and New Labour has a lot to be proud of (though not only them). But I am keen to stress that there is a growing, mistaken consensus that we have won all the advances we need, and they are safe. I did read what you said about Cameron’s stance on section 28 in 2003. I just don’t think it was an appropriate counterbalance to the part of your comment that I took issue with.

Claude, this is a good article (pace Dave Semples’ comments, which are fair), and I broadly agree.

One quick thing though: let’s not pretend the era of tabloid homophobia is entirely over – it isn’t. It’s just a lot less horrendous, and more sneeky.

Witness The Mail and Express constantly (and erroneously) claiming that same-sex couples who adopt are more likely to abuse their adopted children, with the ever-present implication that they will “turn them gay” bubbling away unspoken, just beneath the surface.

This is still homophobia, and it’s mainstream (I’ve lost count of the number of centre, moderately right-leaning friends who are “against” same-sex adoption on the noxious and fabricated grounds the Mail and Express push). Battles go on, etc…

19 – I’m not concern trolling – and I’m not offended by it. It just strikes me as an unnecessarily loaded term.

there are gay people in the Conservative Party who have put party loyalty before LGBT rights

Perhaps they are more concerned by political areas other than their sexuality? Using a particularly extreme example, Douglas Murray certainly doesn’t define his politics by his sexuality.

“But…erm..in 2004, UKIP London mayoral candidate”

That a party has those less than open to a properly liberal attitude to sexuality does not mean that the party has a less than properly liberal attitude.

For example, wasn’t Ken, while London’s actual Labour Mayor, swanning around with someone who seemed confused as to whether the proper treatment of homosexuality was to collapse a wall on them or just throw them off a high one? (Quaraddi? Qwaraddi? Sorry, the name or spelling isn’t coming back to me).

“the UKIP have allied themselves with the League of Polish Families,”

And my hasn’t that produced chortles for us all. Especially the introducing of our MEPs to theirs.

You’ve got to be in a group in the EP. *shrug*

@ Tim J, 21:

Perhaps they are more concerned by political areas other than their sexuality? Using a particularly extreme example, Douglas Murray certainly doesn’t define his politics by his sexuality.

This is the standard right-wing evasion: ‘Well, perhaps these people don’t just define themselves on the basis of their sexuality, but have broader, political concerns.’ But who is responsible for their having to choose between gay rights and their other principles? You think it is unproblematic that gay Tories have to make this choice?

@ Claude, one last thing: I do think it worth pointing out that the New Labour record on gay rights has had its dodgy moments. For instance, it only repealed the ban on gays serving in the military after being forced to do so by a ECHR decision, and even then dragged its heels as long as it could. That angered a lot of gay people at the time.

#22 Tim Worstall

Point taken about Ken Livingstone and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (who was not only homophobic but also anti-semitic, pro-terrorist and openly calling for domestic violence “against disobedient wives”). It was Ken’s lowest moment in office and personally I think he should have known better.

However, for the record, no “alliance” was made, nor was there any “support”. The two just met and talked.

Ken Livingstone openly stated that he disagreed with Al-Qaradawi’s vile views on LGBT. I wonder if the UKIP stated as publicly their disagreement on LGBT issues with their parliamentray allies in Europe.

“I wonder if the UKIP stated as publicly their disagreement”

Details I dunno as I’m back to being just a party member than the sort of obsessive you’ve got to be as a press officer. But as LGBT issues aren’t part of the EP remit I wouldn’t have thought it was all that much of an issue.

Whilst acknowledging the changes effected by New Labour I am inclined to be churlish.

I might now be able to sleep with 16 year olds boys if I want to but on balance I’d rather have a prime minister who doesn’t tell massive porkies as a matter of routine.

What really riles me though is the sneaking suspiscion that New Labour now somehow think they own my vote. Yes – they have made life easier for gay men but this has been totally eclipsed by the complete and utter balls up they have made of everything else.

But who is responsible for their having to choose between gay rights and their other principles? You think it is unproblematic that gay Tories have to make this choice?

My point was rather that not all gay people define gay rights in the same way. Labelling those who disagree with you as betraying their sexuality just seems a bit strident.

But like I said, I don’t have particularly strong opinions on this.

“just think that twelve years didn’t go exactly in vain and that sexual equality will go down in history as one of Labour’s proudest moments.”

Yeah, well done new labour! You’ve send thousands of men to die in far off deserts, you’ve devastated the country through massive unwanted immigration levels, you’ve torn up our constitution and civil liberties, you’ve sold off what’s left of our sovereignty to the EU, you’ve ruined our finances, we still have astronomical crime levels and hospitals are still encrusted with filth, but at least predatory homosexuals can enjoy tight young 16 year old boys. What a ridiculous lot you all here on this pathetic website! You say you’re interested in politics yet you talk as if you were living in a remote space station on the dark side of the moon.