Portillo was no gay martyr

[Guest]

Portillo was no Gay martyr.

 

Ken Clarke as part of his campaign to get into the papers said recently that it was the Tory party’s homophobia that stopped Portillo getting the Tory leadership. Well I have to say this is complete bollocks.

Michael Portillo failed to win the leadership because he was arrogant, unprincipled and unimaginative.

 

Portillo had been an Ultra-Thatcherite firebrand, idolised by the homophobic, xenophobic and Europhobic Tory far right. * He voted against the equalising of the age of consent and for Section 28. He was almost certain to get the leadership in 1997 but he lost his seat to a New Labour starlet with a near 20% swing from Tory to Labour. He managed to bounce back, first with a serious of television interviews then winning the deceased Alan Clark’s seat. However before that he had, he admitted he had homosexual experiences at university (to show how pig headed and insensitive he was he had not told his wife he was to reveal this).

 

*Not to be confused with the far-right which is not only anti-constitutional but also as the name Nazi (Nation Socialist) suggests has economic policies anathema to Thatcherite Tories.

 

Now Portillo’s revelation did have some effect but it has definitely been overstated. It should be remembered that like most other gay ministers his homosexuality was an open secret. If it had any effect it would have been in three ways; either that MPs feared he wasn’t being entirely honest and there were more “skeletons” in the closet, that it broke the old Tory belief that homosexuality should be unspoken (which is a mild form of homophobia more formed by ignorance) and lastly that this underlines Portillo’s 360o on his political beliefs. The first and last are more about Portillo’s character and the 2nd one is regrettable but understandable if you consider the age of Tory MPs.

 

Portillo was not a trustworthy man. He had plotted against John Major (he was the lead “bastard” that Major accused of plotting against him) and soon rumours were surfacing that he had affairs in the 80s when he was married. Also his nauseating bids to reach out to gay voters in speeches (which was fine and dandy but he was Shadow Chancellor not leader) where despite his experiences he could not bring himself to say the words “gay and lesbian voters”. He and his acolytes also started plotting against Hague and Widdlecomb. Now what he and his acolytes said was undoubtedly true but such plotting is anathema to most MPs, especially Tories with Labour and Lib Dems snapping at their heels.

 

Portillo’s conversion was another damaging thing. Portillo had done a 360o on all his political beliefs in the full glare of the public. There was a very real worry about him having any creditable with the public, the Telegraph put it best when it said “he was like the good German after the Second World War, trying to prove his goodness by constantly apologising for being German”. Such an apologetic tone irritated many of his old comrades and his political conversion seemed a betrayal to the fundamentalist Thatcherite wing.

 

It also should be noted that Portillo had been key strategist for the distratous 2001 election campaign. It was he who had convinced Hague not to attack Labour on the Public Services but to attack Labour on Economy and Law & Order. This strategy placed Portillo as the public frontman to one of the key areas (ironically it placed his bitter enemy Ann Widdlecomb as the other frontperson). However he was woeful, as he had been throughout his stint. Portillo never attacked Brown on the economy, to interested in nailing his colours to whatever political correct mast there was. For the first time ever Labour was more trusted on the Economy than the Tories. Now this had a lot to do with Black Wednesday and Gordon Brown’s success as Chancellor, but Michael Portillo had not even laid a punch nor had he tried to (his chief henchman Francis Maude was far superior, thinking up the “Stealth Tax” tag).

 

When the election came and went he set out on his true aim to be Tory leader. However he and his acolytes presumed the leadership was in the bag. He started trying to appeal over the Tory MP and activists’ heads to the Guardian reading left wing middle classes. He dipped a toe in all women shortlist, another toe in legalising cannabis and yet another toe in repealing Section 28, etc.

 

However typically to a member of the insulated London based elite he did not see the repealing of Section 28 as something to be justified but as an accepted fact. It is not, the reason for the repeal (the need for sex education, etc) has never been put to the populous who have instead been greeted with shrill cries about homophobia, which of course the public are at best indifferent to at worst in agreement with. The fact that the likes of the Mail and the Sun destroyed him over this, perhaps scared more than a few MPs away.

 

His filtration with this and other fashionable causes like cannabis legalisation underlined the fact that Portillo was not an iconoclast but a follower of accepted political fashions. In the 70s he was a Wilsonite, in the 80s and early 90s he was a Thatcherite and in the late 90s and early 00s he was an Islingtonite. He was man always bending with the wind, the head boy of a particular movement but not being able to preach it to the unconverted.

 

There were also fears about his appeal to the very people he was trying to woo. Before the election the Guardian attacked Portillo and tried to land a sleaze charge on him. The fact that the very type of people Portillo was trying to woo had rejected supported Steven Stewart’s belief that there’s “something that startles the horses (about Portillo)”. His embarrassing attempt to get Pet Shop Boy tickets cast doubts on his ability to reach out to young voters.

 

Portillo’s conversion had left him without a powerbase in the Tory Party with the exception of personal followers. His “betrayal” had also left him with a good few enemies, plus the old Hague establishment was gunning for him. He also refused to redefine Conservatism to accommodate his new socially libertian beliefs, instead played lip service to the new establishment’s ideals and expecting the masses to acknowledge him as their better. There is no doubt in my mind that if he had got to the members vote his homosexuality would have came into play more, however he didn’t and I believe the reasons I’ve listed above are the true reasons not the paper tiger of Tory homophobia.

[Guest muzanisa]

Why attack Guardian readers?

Can you really say that the grassroots Tory Party isn't homophobic and racist? Are you a member?  Have you ever been in a Conservative club?

If you don't like him fair enough he's another self serving Politician like Blair, Duncan-Smith, Clark and the rest. But as the MP for Chelsea and Westminster he's hardly in a posistion of power now is he?

[Guest]

<Why attack Guardian readers?>

 

I never attacked Guardian readers, I'M a Guardian reader. My point was that Portillo was ignoring the actual electrate in perfernce to talking to the liberal sections of the media and Britian. Which even if you agree with alot of what they say are pretty remote from the man in the street espeacilly the Tory one.

 

<Can you really say that the grassroots Tory Party isn't homophobic and racist? Are you a member?  Have you ever been in a Conservative club?>

 

I never said that the grass roots weren't homophobic, indeed I said that if he had gotton to the membership round then his homosexuality would have played a far more important role. However I don't think this nor any racism has anything to do with Conservative Party itself (and I must say I find the racism charge tenious) but the age of the people its select (any sane person excuses such unfortunate beliefs held by old people as thats the way they were brought up). Also may I say as I gay man I would rather walk into a conservative club than a Trade Union club (and no I'm not a member, although I count myself as a disillusioned Tory).

However their is little exterme homophobia in the Tory Party (i.e their all evil) and most is borne of ignorance and a reaction to people like Peter Tatchell.

 

<If you don't like him fair enough he's another self serving Politician like Blair, Duncan-Smith, Clark and the rest. But as the MP for Chelsea and Westminster he's hardly in a posistion of power now is he?>

 

None (YES!). But the whole article was written for a gay website in response to what Ken Clarke had said (that Portillo's homosexuality had cost him) and I thought might as well post it on here as well).

 

Hope that clears everything up.

 

Lots of Love

Will

xxx

[Guest muzanisa]

Also may I say as I gay man I would rather walk into a conservative club than a Trade Union club

 

LOL Yeah I can see that. Why don't you go to a night club:p

[Guest Risk]

Gay websites?  Thats...odd.  They make sites that are non-pornographic about sexual orientation?  Woah.  That seems weird to me.  I wonder if they have straight websites...or bestiality websites, or bi websites, or necrophilia websites, or pedophila websites, or celibate websites, or pyrophiliacs, or necro-pyro-bestiaily websites, or rape websites.  

 

Hm.  Makes you think.  I wonder if in three hundred years we'll have the PA(Pedophiles Alliance).

[Guest]

Gay websites?  Thats...odd.  They make sites that are non-pornographic about sexual orientation?

 

<I'm an ignorant homophobe>

 

 Woah.  That seems weird to me.  I wonder if they have straight websites...or bestiality websites, or bi websites, or necrophilia websites, or pedophila websites, or celibate websites, or pyrophiliacs, or necro-pyro-bestiaily websites, or rape websites.  

 

<I'm an ignorant homophobe>

 

Hm.  Makes you think.  I wonder if in three hundred years we'll have the PA(Pedophiles Alliance).

 

<I'm an ignorant homophobe>

Idoit!

 

A gay (and bi) website is about how to cope with being homosexual just the same as a teen sex educations site is about educationing straight teenagers how to cope with puberty.

They also cover lifestyle i.e the scene, any helpline/ events cater espeacially to homosexual etc,etc.

 

Homosexuality is just a sexual oreintation just like being black is just a skin colour but discrimination against it turns it into a lifestyle. The fact is gay people cannot marry, have few of the rights open to striaght couples and in certain American states they can't even have sex.

 

When there's true equality and acceptance then being gay stops being a "lifestyle".

 

Lots of hate and bile to ignorant homophobe

Lots of Love to the rest

Will

xxx

[Guest muzanisa]

You tell him Mr Cooling. BTW I thought you were British, you can get married if you like. Ken Livingstone was at a wedding not too long ago if I remember correctly.

I'm assuming you're gay here of course.

[Guest DrTom]

"Homosexuality is just a sexual oreintation just like being black is just a skin colour but discrimination against it turns it into a lifestyle."

 

So persecution makes something a lifestyle?  Since when was "lifestyle" a pejorative?  Not breaking the law and being an honest, forthright person could be considered a lifestyle, too, but your definition only allows for it if honest, forthright people are habitually ridiculed and persecuted.  I just don't see how scorn turns anything into a "lifestyle."

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

Discrimination turns homosexuality into a "lifestyle" because gay people are perceived as being nothing but gay, that being homosexual dominates their entire life and makes them completely different to everyone else.

 

Also, Risk, I really hope you're not comparing paedophilia to being gay.

[Guest DrTom]

I still think persecution qualifying something as a "lifestyle" is a flimsy definition and probably misuse of the term.  The way someone lives their life is a lifestyle.  Being perceived as something or ridiculed for something shouldn't have anything to do with it.  Obviously, "lifestyle" has taken on a different connotation over the years that differs markedly from its actual meaning.

[Guest Risk]

Idoit!

 

A gay (and bi) website is about how to cope with being homosexual just the same as a teen sex educations site is about educationing straight teenagers how to cope with puberty.

They also cover lifestyle i.e the scene, any helpline/ events cater espeacially to homosexual etc,etc.

 

Homosexuality is just a sexual oreintation just like being black is just a skin colour but discrimination against it turns it into a lifestyle. The fact is gay people cannot marry, have few of the rights open to striaght couples and in certain American states they can't even have sex.

 

When there's true equality and acceptance then being gay stops being a "lifestyle".

 

Lots of hate and bile to ignorant homophobe

Lots of Love to the rest

Will

xxx

 

I was only expressing my opinion, it's a two way street.  Calling me an idiot for saying what I think is idiotic in itself.  Since when does expressing your opinion make you a homophobe?  Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, I don't really seem to be afraid of them OR to be around them, guys or girls.  

 

I don't base others with that lifestyle, I don't beat them up, I don't say descriminating words, yet because I don't agree with something I'm a homophobe?  Frankly, that is asanine.  Homophobic people look for scrapegoats in the homosexual, just like you, Will, are trying to do to me.  You are trying to make me the target of all YOUR hate.

 

Just because a person dislikes something does not mean he hates it, if we weren't allowed to express educated opinions than we would TRULY live in a fascist society.  What I was originally intending to do was show how a mind in a differant time mindset might think.

 

For instance, young women and males were not uncommon in parts of the world.  Some theologians even suggest Mary was thirteen when Christ was conceived and fourteen when she bore him.  It then relates how Joseph did NOT have sexual relations with her UNTIL JC was born.  Do I agree with this?  

 

Frankly, I don't really care about this.  If you believe humans evolved from apes and morality is a lie, then everything gets thrown out the window anyways.  But back to the mindset...back then if you were in that time than you would have probably have condoned young girls and older men getting married.  

 

I was also trying to make the point that over time MORE lifestyles are accepted and created.  So, some lifestyles we coinsider unsavory or criminal MAY be accepted in the future.  Hope this clears everything up.  Later.

[Guest Risk]

Also, Will, it seems like you are the one pushing your opinions on people.  Homophobes usually push their opinions on others, which I didn't, you on the other hand responded with insults because someone didn't agree with you.

[Guest]

If you believe humans evolved from apes and morality is a lie, then everything gets thrown out the window anyways.

These two beliefs do not necessarily go hand in hand.

[Guest Risk]

If you believe humans evolved from apes and morality is a lie, then everything gets thrown out the window anyways.

These two beliefs do not necessarily go hand in hand.

I know, but I wanted to get to the point without typing too much.  Sorry about that Marney.  I actually believe in God and evolution.

[Guest]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification - I'm glad I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Guest Risk]

No problem.  

[Guest]

Sorry its taken me so looong to reply to this but I've been doing a play (darling) and so I've been busy. I'm sure you've all been hanging at the edge of seats for this reply!!!

 

Okay Risk sorry for calling you an idiot and a homophobe although your moaning about in the BVC folder isn't very becoming. If I really hated Freedom of Speech then I'd hardly hang around here where 90% of people disagree with me on the one issue we talk about.

So while I respect you right to say whatever you want (and I say this as someone against "Hate Crimes") you can phrase it better and less bluntly (which to be fair you did claify it) just remember that although you have freedom of speech what you say can sometimes be offensive and hurt/annoy people.

 

Anyhow onto your point, you brought up a very long list of "deviant" sex tastes (hmm) and being an innocent soul I only know two of them, those being Beastility and Padephollia so I'll try and explain them, Beastility first.

 

There is nothing morally wrong with Beastility if you just believe in Evolution, etc as animals sometimes cross-breed. If you believe God, etc then to have sex with an animal not is sex out of marriage with no chance of a child but also it breaks man's responsiblty to look after animals and protect them.

However even if you believe just in evolution Beastility is still wrong in practice as we cannot be sure the animal has consented to sex as we cannot understand them so we have to presume its rape.

 

On Padeophilla. Firstly Padeophilla is not an orentation in its own right like Homo/Hetero/Bi-Sexuality but a fetish and off shoot from the main orentation (i.e. a gay padeophille like only boys) so its not the equal of Homosexuality. Also Padeophilla often comes with mental problems i.e. believing child actually enjoy the sex, etc.

On the moral grounds you (or someone else I can't remember) mentioned how Joesph married Mary when she was 14(?). Well this true but marriage was different then. Marriage was not a thing that allowed sex between two consenting adults but the giving of the women from the father to the husband. Consent never played a part in it (as can be seen in the fact that until the 19th century a husband could not rape his wife).

Nowadays we see things differently, we see sex as an act between two consenting people who both want it (ooh suits you!!!). We believe that a child is not mature enough to make that choice and even if s/he said yes then they would have been led on by the adult which is why Padeophilla is illegal.

 

Hetero/Homo/Bi-Sexuality are all phrases used to cover the sexual tastes of people. The sex in question happens between two (or more) adults who have consented which makes it morally ok.

 

William

[Guest Risk]

Mary seemed to love Joseph.  Joseph also didn't make love with her UNTIL after the baby was born, as recounted in scripture.  But, if you don't believe in God or Judeo-Chriatian theology, then it is all natural for the male of the species to want to breed with a female in her prime.  He knows by instinct that she will have a better chance of breeding.

 

I mentioned the Mary thing, BTW.  I do agree it IS unnatural for a male to want a female under age 13, since she has no breeding abilities.  I would coincider someone wanting a person under 13 for sex TRUE pedophilia(the mental disorder).

[Guest Risk]

Anyways, my point was that things we think of disgusting or wrong may eventually be thought of as harmless and part of everyday life.

[Guest DrTom]

"Anyways, my point was that things we think of disgusting or wrong may eventually be thought of as harmless and part of everyday life."

 

Some already have been, and some are in other parts of the world.  The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced pedophilia, and usually gay pedophilia at that.  Incest is considered harmless and natural in other countries.  Our society has built them up as taboos, and it's thru social conditioning that most people reject things like incest and pedophilia as strongly as they do.