Return to: Home | Blogs | Brian Coleman

The closet is a lonely place

Conservative London Assembly member Brian Coleman gives us his take on the controversial issue of naming people as gay in the process outing Ted Heath as a 'cottager'

The 'closet' is increasingly becoming a lonely place for gay men.

Public figures whose sexuality would have remained firmly private until their Obituaries in the "Daily Telegraph" concluded with the three words "He was unmarried" are now rushing to discuss their preferences with all and sundry. Senior Police Officers, Cathedral Deans and even Tory MPs regularly adorn the pages of the gay press.

However, I am not sure if public life is healthier because Mr and Mrs Average happens to know that Mark Oaten had a taste for rent boys or that Simon Hughes has had gay relationships (never trust a man who dyes his hair says my Mother).

The country has managed for decades with gay men holding a significant number of public offices. The late Ted Heath managed to obtain the highest Office of State after he was supposedly advised to cease his Cottaging activities in the 1950s when he became a Privy Councillor and in recent times the Leader of one of the best Local Authorities in the Country only came out having received his Knighthood and after a scurrilous campaign by "Private Eye".

I once asked the late Baroness Blatch as she tried to position herself to inherit the anti-gay crusade of Baroness Young exactly who she thought ran the Conservative Party in London? When she looked at me blankly I replied "the gay men of course" and certainly a huge percentage of Conservative Councillors , professional staff and Association Officers are gay .

In my experience the only people fascinated as to who does what and to whom are other gay men. The average voter could not care less if their Member of Parliament visits Hampstead Heath at Midnight as long as they get the holes in the road mended. The Anglican worshipper in the pew cares not that the local Bishop has a taste for black leather under their cassocks as long as keeps his hands away from the choirboys.

The recent concept of "outing" is something inspired by the tabloid press and designed not to liberate gay men (and it is almost universally applied only to gay men) but to discourage thousands of men from pursuing a public career because they genuinely feel that their private life is nobody's business than their own.

Of course there is no place for hypocrisy in public life , I have no time for Members of Parliament who voted against repealing Section 28 and then put their hands down young Tory activists' trousers when drunk at Party Conference.

The peculiarly English fascination with prominent people's private lives, in marked contrast to France. does nothing but damage to our society. Let the George Michaels of this world who want to discuss their nocturnal activities do so. Let those politicians who just want to serve their constituents and the community in general and do not feel the need to parade their sexuality stand for election on their own terms.

Oh and before you ask, yes I am and I am open to offers!

Brian Coleman is London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

15 comments from readers

Jgeorge
23 April 2007 at 21:12

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.

Guessedworker
24 April 2007 at 17:07

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.

Joe Moore
24 April 2007 at 18:09

It's certainly true that there are a decent number of gay Tory councillors in London. Check out this listing for details.

Joe Moore
24 April 2007 at 18:09

HTML obviously doesn't work, then...

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

bobchilts
25 April 2007 at 08:52

As a Tory local election candidate myself I really don't see what a person's sexuality has to do with their effectiveness in office. Perhaps Sir Edward's silence on the issue implied he wished to keep his private life private, which we are all entitled to do. Unless someone makes a point of discussing their sexuality, I do think people should refrain from speculating in public about other people's private lives, particularly when the person in question has since passed away.

Just a thought.

IrritatedofTonbridge
25 April 2007 at 11:07

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!

RedDaybreak
25 April 2007 at 11:22

Poor old Ted. I can just imagine him shuddering in his grave. I'm amused that Coleman - whom I loathe incidentally - wrote an article about outing and then outed one of the less rancidly unpleasant Conservative premiers! Way to go Brian! Shows how fundamentally disingenuous you really are!

Alexandra Smith
25 April 2007 at 11:29

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?

Sheikh Nasrallah
25 April 2007 at 11:38

I more or less agree with you Brian (although always so difficult for me to agree with a Tory, on any issue). Private lives of public figures should remain a private matter, though there could be exceptions when hypocracy is involved (John Major-Currie thing).

You rightly mentioned France. Nicolas Sarkozy's marriage has been the tabloid fodder. It was love at first sight when he fell for his second wife — at her wedding to someone else. During his run for the presidency, she left him for a while, and paparazzi photographed her hand-in-hand with another man.

French voters don't seem to care about all this.

But I hope Boris Johnson is not encouraged by this article.

Peter Tatchell
25 April 2007 at 14:45

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.

forthurst
25 April 2007 at 15:17

How would Heath have come out the closet, when a significant part of his career had been spent in it, of legal necessity?

Homosexuality is an important issue only when prejudiced legislators try to stigmatise and regulate behavour which is natural, yes, but abnormal, in the mistaken belief that such behaviour is under the conscious control of the individual: a lifestyle choice, or a 'vulnerable' adolescent being 'turned' by a 'predatory' homosexual, hence Section 28, which is also an example of conflating the issue with paedophilia.

I recall a conversation with a friend in the 60s who opined that Heath was a 'Top Secret' puff. I disagreed, on the contrary, he is a Most Secret puff!

Marina Pepper
26 April 2007 at 12:18

Isn't it the point that whether straight, gay or any permutation on the LGBT spectrum it's not - as Bananarama so rightly said - what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Extra marital affairs, paying prostitutes, using illegal drugs and lying about it are reasonable issues which, when they involve politicians, should be open to public debate, not which hole you take it up and from whom.

Yes, politicians are entitled to private lives, but there can never in a just society be one rule for us and another for them. Since we don't have a just society, I guess we just enjoy the HP sauce when it comes.

historybuff
30 April 2007 at 22:59

In anthropolgy and even in the LGBT community there is no agreement about what makes a person queer or who is queer; all the evidence indicates that these labels and categories are culturally determined; there are some guys that think if they just top, they can other guys and still be straight, there are even some men who bottom for trannies and insist they are straight; some people think that even getting head from a another guy means you must be gay; until such time as there IS agreement, it's really a matter for the individual to decide; our TRUE sexual idendity is not necessarily determined by what we have ALREADY done or thought, sexually. Let there be some recognition and latitude given, please, for self discovery and sexual fluidity and evolving self identification. In this context, the question of 'outing' becomes passe.

Paddy Briggs
08 May 2007 at 17:48

Sadly I suspect that if Heath was a Cottager he really did have no option but to hide it and give it up.Lord Browne lives in different times and there would have been little problem if he had come out. Shame that he lacked the cojonnes to do so.

whig
09 March 2009 at 12:52

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.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Up the City of London

16 January 2008 11:54

A few cans of Hairspray

02 January 2008 12:01

Serving should be a vocation

20 December 2007 12:31

United with Livingstone

04 December 2007 11:43

Let's hear it for Charlie...

19 November 2007 12:56

Costs saved, lives lost

05 November 2007 16:45

The 'desecration' of Cyprus

22 October 2007 11:34

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Vote!

Should we build new nuclear power plants?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker