Ukip leader Nigel Farage. Source: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour can’t stand Farage but they don’t want him to fail

Miliband’s reliance on Ukip taking votes from the Tories puts the opposition in an uncomfortable moral position.

The benefits for both Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage of debating Britain’s membership of the European Union on TV and radio tonight are clear. Each hopes to raise his profile and remind everyone that England has more than two parties worth considering in elections. (In Scotland and Wales that has been obvious for a while.)

Although they will be taking antagonistic positions they are not exactly rivals. The two leaders are fishing in fairly distinct pools of electors. Clegg is not  in the business of reaching out to anti-immigration, anti-politics nay-sayers and Farage is even less interested in charming the liberal Europhile vote. As I wrote in my column recently, the Lib Dem leader’s chief aim is to rebut the charges that he doesn’t believe in anything and serves no obvious purpose. (Otherwise known as the “if the Lib Dems didn’t exist, would you have to invent them?” question.) Standing up as the anti-Farage – the only leader prepared to call Ukip out rather than cringing in fear – is not a bad way to claw back some self-respect for a party that has taken a sustained beating in recent years.

As one senior Lib Dem recently pointed out to me, since the party is sure to be mauled in local elections and European parliamentary elections in May, there is some virtue in facing the barrage from a position of clear principle. Better, in other words, to be duffed up for believing in something and sticking to it than for being David Cameron’s anonymous lapdog.

From Farage’s point of view, anything that establishes Ukip as a mainstream threat to the Westminster status quo is a win. But there are obvious risks. His appeal so far has been built on relatively short performances and bursts of publicity – the one-minute Question Time rant; the photo-shoot in the pub. It isn’t yet clear that he can sustain a credible argument over a length of time and he has recently displayed a tendency to get tetchy and impatient when challenged. I suspect part of Clegg’s strategy will be to flush out Nasty Nigel – the angry red-faced man railing in fear and rage at the modern world. The big advantage that the Ukip leader has is that he is on the more popular side of the argument. If it was easy to make EU membership obviously attractive to British audiences, one of the very many pro-European politicians in power over the past generation might have done it.

For that reason, pro-Europeans will be cheering Clegg on tonight. Well, most pro-Europeans. An interesting question is what the Labour party will be hoping happens in the prize fight. On the issues, the overwhelming majority of opposition MPs, including Ed Miliband, are much closer to the Lib Dem position than the Ukip one. Besides, a party of the left should by instinct want to see a reactionary nationalist insurgency defeated. Ideally, Labour would be taking that fight to Farage directly but Miliband already has his work cut out taking the fight to Cameron.  And since Ukip is making life difficult for the Tories, taking their voters in crucial marginal seats, the opposition has an interest in Farage’s bubble not bursting.

By contrast, Cameron advertises himself as a Eurosceptic but he has committed himself to campaigning for an “in” vote in a referendum (albeit on the assumption that the vote follows a successful renegotiation of membership terms). His interests are clearly aligned with Clegg’s tonight. If the Lib Dem leader proves to be an effective foil to Farage, it gets easier to see how the tide might be turned against Ukip, which means voters coming back to the Tories in time for a 2015 general election. And, better still, if Clegg achieves any kind of recovery on the back of a solidly liberal pro-EU platform, it will be at Labour’s expense.

The line from both Labour and Tories is that tonight’s debate is a side-show for also-ran parties. A Downing Street spokesman yesterday said that Cameron was unlikely to have time even to watch the argument. No doubt Miliband also wants us to think that he is also too busy. And in reality most of the nation will find something better to do than sit through an hour of qualified majority voting weights and Strasbourg attendance records. But the leaders of the two big parties will, of course, be paying attention, not least because they will be looking for clues and insight into how a 2015 general election debate might play out. Cameron will be secretly rooting for Clegg. His party might not like that but the electoral logic is clear. Tories need Farage to fail. By extension, Labour need Clegg to stay beaten and Conservatives to stay frightened of Ukip. It is not a comfortable position for the opposition, wanting Farage’s arguments to be defeated at some stage but not wanting the man himself to stumble yet; not when he might still help clear a route for Miliband to get to Downing Street.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

"We repealed, then forgot": the long shadow of Section 28 homophobia

Why are deeply conservative views about the "promotion" of homosexuality still being reiterated to Scottish school pupils? 

Grim stories of LGBTI children being bullied in school are all too common. But one which emerged over the weekend garnered particular attention - because of the echoes of the infamous Section 28, nearly two decades after it was scrapped.

A 16-year-old pupil of a West Lothian school, who does not wish to be named, told Pink News that staff asked him to remove his small rainbow pride badge because, though they had "no problem" with his sexuality, it was not appropriate to "promote it" in school. It's a blast from the past - the rules against "promoting" homosexuality were repealed in 2000 in Scotland, but the long legacy of Section 28 seems hard to shake off. 

The local authority responsible said in a statement that non-school related badges are not permitted on uniforms, and says it is "committed to equal rights for LGBT people". 

The small badge depicted a rainbow-striped heart, which the pupil said he had brought back from the Edinburgh Pride march the previous weekend. He reportedly "no longer feels comfortable going to school", and said homophobia from staff members felt "much more scar[y] than when I encountered the same from other pupils". 

At a time when four Scottish party leaders are gay, and the new Westminster parliament included a record number of LGBTQ MPs, the political world is making progress in promoting equality. But education, it seems, has not kept up. According to research from LGBT rights campaigners Stonewall, 40 per cent of LGBT pupils across the UK reported being taught nothing about LGBT issues at school. Among trans students, 44 per cent said school staff didn’t know what "trans" even means.

The need for teacher training and curriculum reform is at the top of campaigners' agendas. "We're disappointed but not surprised by this example," says Jordan Daly, the co-founder of Time for Inclusive Education [TIE]. His grassroots campaign focuses on making politicians and wider society aware of the reality LGBTI school students in Scotland face. "We're in schools on a monthly basis, so we know this is by no means an isolated incident." 

Studies have repeatedly shown a startling level of self-harm and mental illness reported by LGBTI school students. Trans students are particularly at risk. In 2015, Daly and colleagues began a tour of schools. Shocking stories included one in which a teacher singled out a trans pupils for ridicule in front of the class. More commonly, though, staff told them the same story: we just don't know what we're allowed to say about gay relationships. 

This is the point, according to Daly - retraining, or rather the lack of it. For some of those teachers trained during the 1980s and 1990s, when Section 28 prevented local authorities from "promoting homosexuality", confusion still reigns about what they can and cannot teach - or even mention in front of their pupils. 

The infamous clause was specific in its homophobia: the "acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" could not be mentioned in schools. But it's been 17 years since the clause was repealed in Scotland - indeed, it was one of the very first acts of the new Scottish Parliament (the rest of the UK followed suit three years later). Why are we still hearing this archaic language? 

"We repealed, we clapped and cheered, and then we just forgot," Daly says. After the bitter campaign in Scotland, in which an alliance of churches led by millionaire businessman Brian Souter poured money into "Keeping the Clause", the government was pleased with its victory, which seemed to establish Holyrood as a progressive political space early on in the life of the parliament. But without updating the curriculum or retraining teaching staff, Daly argues, it left a "massive vacuum" of uncertainty. 

The Stonewall research suggests a similar confusion is likely across the UK. Daly doesn't believe the situation in Scotland is notably worse than in England, and disputes the oft-cited allegation that the issue is somehow worse in Scotland's denominational schools. Homophobia may be "wrapped up in the language of religious belief" in certain schools, he says, but it's "just as much of a problem elsewhere. The TIE campaign doesn't have different strategies for different schools." 

After initial disappointments - their thousands-strong petition to change the curriculum was thrown out by parliament in 2016 - the campaign has won the support of leaders such as Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia Dugdale, and recently, the backing of a majority of MSPs. The Scottish government has set up a working group, and promised a national strategy. 

But for Daly, who himself struggled at a young age with his sexuality and society's failure to accept it, the matter remains an urgent one.  At just 21, he can reel off countless painful stories of young LGBTI students - some of which end in tragedy. One of the saddest elements of the story from St Kentigern's is that the pupil claimed his school was the safest place he had to express his identity, because he was not out at home. Perhaps for a gay pupil in ten years time, that will be a guarantee. 

0800 7318496