Never thought I'd agree with you Brian, and I'm not sure that I do now, but you make the point well! To what degree does someone's sexuality affect their ability to do a good job? Only when they let it - and make judgements and rulings on other people's legitimate choices. Live and let live.

The assumption here is that homosexuals can serve the public interest with or without declaring themselves. That may be so in many cases, but it is not automatically so in all.

Unqualified support for the homosexual equality agenda in our schools is a case in point, since it takes no account - nor has any conception - of the interests of the majority. All focus is on the interests of the homosexual minority. Homosexuals in politics who cannot conceive of a greater interest than their own really have no business representing the public.

Among those homosexual Tory MPs who voted for Section 28 may have been some who understood this very well. There is also a fundamental point of difference between Conservatism and liberalism wrapped up in this. If one believes that freedom arises out of social stability - and can only arise out of social stability - one is a genuine Conservative. The idea of Conservatism has become so conflated with the right-liberal presumption that freedom resides in the unfettered will, this crucial distinction is inclined to be forgotten.

So some, at least, of those homosexual Tories who voted for Section 28 may have deserved the name Conservative, and certainly do not deserve the charge of hypocrisy that attaches to them on the left, and which is retailed by Brian here.

HTML obviously doesn't work, then...

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~linc1835/gaypoliticians.htm

Brian, thought your article was hilarious! I've always thought the Tories were essentially a gay party. Thatcher? Queer icon if ever I saw one. Ted Heath? Hello Sailor! My only thought today is that Brian will be in a lot of trouble. Slapped wrist? He'd love it!

Bity of an irony Brian that you've managed to out Ted Heath in your efforts to oppose outing. Maybe the public doesn't care about sexuality, but the papers certainly do - check out the Sun, Times, Telegraph, Mirror etc etc today running with your "exclusive". Was this your intention, or are you just a very silly man?

I wasn’t at all surprised by Brian's comments on Ted Heath. It was an open secret. His sexuality was privately talked about in media and political circles since the 1960s. Satirical magazines like Private Eye alluded to it. They gave him the gay tag ‘Hello sailor.’

Coming out in the 1970s would have provoked a huge homophobic backlash. I can understand why Ted stayed closeted three decades ago, but not why he kept it a secret in the late 1990s. His candour would have won him respect and admiration.

Surely, the issue is that being gay during the period when Heath was prominent in public life was a 'no,no'.
It made him blackmailable and corruptible - an ideal creature for the hidden hands that ultimately control our politicians. Tom Driberg (also an MI5 agent)was another such individual and William Boothby aswell. Driberg's indiscretions were conveniently kept out of the papers because he was well connected (via Beaverbrook) but it meant he was 'owned' nevertheless. Whilst everyone is entitled to keep their 'private life' private, when an individual such as Heath is elected to serve the public interest we want to know they are serving our agenda, not someone else's. Obviously, being gay in public life now is not a problem for those who neutralise the 'threat' by coming out. That is due to a wholesale shift in cultural attitudes. Other sexual taboos like paedophilia however, will continue to remain as a blackmail trap for ambitious politicians and no amount of cultural shifting is ever going to change that, God forbid!

The were three prime ministers who were unmarried
(well, four actually, there was Wilmington as well,
1742-43, but he did sire some illegitimates), William
Pitt, Arthur Balfour and Ted Heath. Curiously, the three
of them Tories.

The only drawback with Brian Coleman's article is that it provides no evidence for his assertions about Heath. The phrase "supposedly advised" belongs in the News of the World, not the New Statesman. The sad thing about some of the NS's posters is that they also appear anxious to make judgements based on prejudice rather than evidence. Tatchell's "open secret" is evidence of his obsession with the subject not with the facts as known.