Many top Tories are a lot more liberal about homosexuality than they dare admit to their grass-root supporters, believes Simon Heffer
When Ivan Massow, the homosexual businessman, was photographed with senior Labour figures to mark his "defection" from the Tories, a small ripple of joy went around his old party. Whatever arguments there might have been in the Tory family over the party's opposition to the repeal of Section 28, there is a general belief among Conservatives that the association of new Labour with the campaign for homosexual rights has done it little electoral good. For a man whom the Tories regarded as a nonentity to be feted by Labour purely, it seemed, because he was homosexual was felt to be just the sort of boost that the party would gladly have paid to organise.
Massow will probably regard the rejoicing at his departure as clear evidence of the homophobia he felt he had detected. Whatever his motives, he has attracted attention to his cause, although he seems to have failed to provoke a change of heart on Section 28. Most commentators, irrespective of their views on the matter, seem to feel that Labour's pride in acquiring this master of foxhounds is a sign of that party's desperately low morale.
What upset the Tory high command most about Massow's defection were the stories that followed it about the prospect of a peerage having been held out to him if he had decided to stay. On the morning the story - written by a careful and well-connected Times journalist - was run, the telephone wires burned up with denials that any such thing had happened. The line was that no one with any authority - in other words, no one sent by William Hague himself - had held out this prospect to Massow. However, more cautious hands in the party would not rule out the possibility that someone without authority had sought to tempt Massow with such a thought, hoping that Hague could be talked round if Massow seemed tractable. If this is the case, whoever made the offer badly misunderstands his own leader and the prevailing view among Tory party supporters, both in the country and in the media. Hague might have been in Philadelphia hours before Massow's defection preaching the gospel of "compassionate Conservatism", but, as far as he is concerned, there is no chapter or verse in that gospel that includes an extension of rights to homosexuals.
Hague understands the mood of his grass roots on this issue only too well. He softened his earlier support for a lowering of the homosexual age of consent to 16 on the strong advice of his kitchen cabinet, who themselves acted on feedback from focus groups and constituency contacts. Hague still has profound libertarian instincts, but they are now, of necessity, tempered by what his members will tolerate. They will not tolerate what they see as "special" treatment for homosexuals. Any notion that Massow could have qualified for one of the rare peerages that Hague is these days asked to nominate would be incredible to most Tory activists. This is not because Massow is homosexual: there is no shortage of Tory peers with that orientation. It is because his work for the party and his contribution to society are so minor compared with those of other likely candidates that, if he were ennobled, it could only be because the party wanted a token young, prominent homosexual in its ranks.
Rightly or wrongly, Lord Alli - the young homosexual businessman ennobled by the Prime Minister - has come to embody, for many in the Tory party, what they see as the new meretriciousness of the reformed House of Lords. Massow is alleged to have said to friends that he wanted to be the Tories' Lord Alli. Most Tories believe that an equivalent of Lord Alli is unlikely to boost their electoral prospects: indeed, quite the reverse.
On the question of attitudes towards homosexuality, there is a classic metropolitan/provincial split in the party. It applies, too, to heterosexual indiscretions, as any number of fornicating Tory MPs in the previous parliament will readily testify. At Westminster and in Tory Central Office, a notion prevails that sexual conduct of any sort is no matter for comment, provided that it is within the law. There is also a sense of liberal, educated dismay at the less modern attitudes of the mass of Tory party members. Out in the country, the idea that the Conservatives are the party of the family is still important. It is what has fed support for Section 28, and it helps explain why no Tory candidate has yet gone before a selection committee, admitted he is a practising homosexual, and gone on to win a seat in the Commons.
The homosexuals who sit on the Tory benches are, almost without exception, so firmly in the closet that a small bomb would be required to blow them out of it. Quite a few used the device of the imitation girlfriend at selection meetings. Their constituency associations tolerate their sexuality, provided that it is never mentioned or advertised; and the unspoken bargain is, almost entirely, meticulously kept.
The exception, up to a point, is Michael Portillo, who admitted to a newspaper last year that he had once had homosexual experiences. It was portrayed as the admission of a man who wished to create a more tolerant, caring, "inclusive" image not only for himself, but also for his party. In this, he seemed to be following Hague's lead, given the leader's earlier support for reducing the age of consent. The inclusiveness soon ran up against hard political reality. Portillo loyally went through the lobbies with his party on Section 28; there was never any prospect of his doing otherwise. With him went a number of Tory MPs who are well known to be homosexual. The force of opinion in the party's power base was too strong for them to make a stand and keep their seats.
However, within Central Of-fice itself is a group firmly at odds with the party on this question. For nearly 30 years, the party's headquarters has employed a disproportionate number of practising homosexuals. Lord Thorneycroft, when he was chairman 25 years ago, tried to clear some of them out; but as some have moved on, others have been appointed to replace them. Supporters of Hague blamed a group of organised homosexuals in Smith Square for some of the destabilisation earlier in the year when Portillo, whom the group reveres above Hague, was restored to the shadow cabinet.
For the moment, Hague appears to be tolerating dissent on the subject. Steve Norris, to whom Massow was famously "policy adviser" during the London mayoral election, continues to make no secret of his liberal views on rights for homosexuals, and he has just become a vice- chairman of the party.
However, Hague was also well aware of the ferocious obloquy poured over Norris by the Daily Mail and other Tory papers when, during that campaign, he said he would tolerate "discreet" public acts between homosexuals if he was elected. An agreement to differ has been established where Norris is concerned, easier because he is not a member of parliament and, therefore, not required to go into a division lobby on the issue. His appointment as a vice-chairman suggests, however, that the party is speaking with forked tongue on "inclusivity": tensions there are inevitable before long.
Most senior Tories would rather that sexuality did not have to be an issue at all. In private, most argue that opposition to the repeal of Section 28 does not indicate prejudice against homosexuals. They merely wish children to reach greater maturity before having "promotional" material about homosexuality put before them. They would be happier if the party could return to an age when the confirmed bachelors among its number were just that, and nobody took any interest in their private lives. Sadly, that is unlikely to happen. As a result, homosexual Conservatives will be forced more and more into crises of conscience. There is, for some, the prospect of re-educating the activists. But, as anyone who has witnessed the Tory grass roots in action will know, that is not a viable option. Too many regard homosexuality as abnormal and shameful.
Conservative associations, as they choose candidates for the Commons, like to choose men, and especially men with a wife. This is particularly true of Tory ladies of the old school - nor is it a question of sheer conformity. An MP with a wife can effectively double his work-rate at constituency functions. During boundary changes in the early 1980s, a constituency association rejected the application by a sitting MP who was both politically prominent and discreetly homosexual, even though he represented a portion of the new seat. The association chairman said that he had failed because "it is amazing the work one can get out of a good wife".
Little has changed on that front. The climate, for now, is that overt admissions of homosexuality are unwanted in the Tory party. Massow felt he had somewhere to go when this became too much for him: most other Tory homosexuals do not. Like those legions of Labour supporters who woke up one morning a few years ago and discovered that their party had become capitalist, they will just have to grin and bear it.
The writer, a columnist for the Daily Mail, is our Conservative Party correspondent
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
