Simon Hughes

This is quite unbelievable. Twenty years ago a then unknown Liberal Democrat politician, Simon Hughes, took a safe labour seat. How? A rankly homophobic campaign against the openly gay labour candidate. (It wasn't subtle, unless you think putting out leaftets saying "Vote Hughes- the straight choice" is subtle.)

Nice people, the liberals, I've always said it. I wonder if their 1992 Cheltenham leafters claimed the voters had a "black and white" choice? But I digress.

Anyway, this man is now a candidate for leader of his party, and therefore presumably in some fantasy world, considers he would be a suitable prime minister. And perhaps as part of that he has recently finally admitted that the 1983 campaign was wrong.

Quote:

---

Earlier this week, Mr Hughes apologised for homophobic elements of the by-election campaign which first shot him to political fame in a shock victory in 1983.

He told BBC2's Newsnight that he accepted some elements of his party's campaign to defeat gay rights activist Peter Tatchell had been "unacceptable", although he pointed out that Mr Tatchell blamed the media and Labour colleagues more.

---

And NOW he admits to having had "homosexual relationships" himself. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/...695212,00.html

So we have someone who wants to lead his party and country, who has so little moral sense that he allowed his campaigners to vilify a man for being gay, when he himself is also gay (or bisexual)

Word fail me. I have always hated the liberal democrats (in contrast to labour who I used to quite respect) but this is beyond the pale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

This is quite unbelievable.

---

I know what you mean, but people can learn from their mistakes. Hughes' personal history seems like a complicated affair of the kind that may teach people the true value of honesty and integrity. Then again, it may not. So how does he deal with it?

The 1983 campaign was a stink, but at least he now acknowledges that. And his avowed homosexual relationships are neither here nor there when it comes to fulfilling a role in public life; denying that would make us belated accomplices to his 1983 campaign.

I wonder what makes him unsuitable and unpalatable now as opposed to trenty years ago. Show me a politician who was not a jerk in some sense or other twenty years ago. At least Hughes has come clean, and what he says is essentially right: 'Nobody has a perfect life. I have never claimed I have. Very few people have simple lives. I believe that people have a right to a private life, providing that their private life does not impinge upon their public responsibilities.'

The words benefit and doubt come to mind. My own mind, I know; not yours probably.

Just to be clear about this, this has nothing to do with the fact that he has had homosexual relationships. Its about the fact that he allowed those working for him to attack someone (in a way that would in any case be unacceptable) for something that he himself also did/does.

Contrary to your pessimistic view of politicians I think that is probably pretty rare.

As for how he deals with it, well, IMHO you deal with that by not doing it in the first place. OK, it is better that he is penitent than unrepentant, (though it might have been more convincing if he hadn't waited utnil it was all forced out in the leadership campaign) but better still would be not to be the sort of person did it at all. And, sure, people change, I dare say he wouldn't do it now, but I know I would not have allowed anyone to run a homophobic campaign for me when I was in my twenties, or however old he was, still less would it ever at any time have occured to me to attack someone for something I was doing myself.

And I think and hope I am in the majority of the human race on that.

I do find it hard to be wholly objective about this, and the reason is simply that I smarted through the 90s as a succession of Tory scumbags were outed (I mean Aitken, Archer, Hamilton, not the sex ones, I couldn't have cared less about those), and all the while we had the moral lectures from the LDs who "weren't like" other parties and who were "honest" and "constructive" and, blah blah blah, you know the script. And what would you know but in the last month we've had three of the most senior members of the party outed as an alcoholic, a user of rent boys, and an arrant hypocrite. They were as bad as anyone else all along, well who would have thought it?

Sorry but IMHO the whole party is a disgusting boil on the body politic, filled largely with the pus of middle class self loathing. If they were to disappear entirely to be replaced by Respect on the far left and Labour in the centre left I will be very happy.

ive lost all support i had for the party untill they get their act together, for the record though i don't think there was anything wrong with Charles Kenedy being an alcoholic and if he can get himself on the wagon and back in charge i probably would support them again.

I used to be involved with the LibDems.

low down scumbags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

I used to be involved with the LibDems.

low down scumbags.

---

Could you be a taff more specific?

suffice to say that the manner of Hughes' election is no great surprise to me given their style of electioneering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Its about the fact that he allowed those working for him to attack someone (in a way that would in any case be unacceptable) for something that he himself also did/does.

---

And this is where it gets complicated. I confess I do not know enough about the case to go into detail. But precisely because of his own position as a closet homosexual at the time, Hughes may have succumbed to either a psychological need or a strong social pressure to go along with those who wanted to turn his campaign into a homophobic circus. His party of origin has a record on the subject, as you are no doubt aware. If so, then you are right that he should haev owned up earlier and even now he should not simply pass it off as a mistake. He should make it clear that he has sweated out the disease, not just suppressed it because is it not done anymore these days. You are fair to say that Mr Hughes still has some explaining to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Contrary to your pessimistic view of politicians I think that is probably pretty rare.

---

It isn't, not on the right side of the spectrum. I remember the Tories harping on 'moral basics' all the time during the nineties whilst ignoring them rather massively in office (insider trading, cash for questions, brown envelopes) and in their spare time (prostitutes, booze, adultery, strangulation sex, you name it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Sorry but IMHO the whole party is a disgusting boil on the body politic, filled largely with the pus of middle class self loathing.

---

No benefit of the doubt there, eh? ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin
... is a disgusting boil on the body politic, filled largely with the pus of middle class self loathing...

---

Whatever one's thoughts on the topic, ya hafta admit: our EngAssassin can turn a phrase. :joker:

Like AdrianII, I don't blame Simon Hughes. I entered university in 1983 and homosexuality still seemed to be a taboo, with rare public declarations only coming from men such as Tatchell who were seen as wierd and commonly villified for their sexuality. In that kind of high pressure atmosphere for a gay man in politics, I can sympathise with Simon Hughes' situation. He's always struck me as decent bloke. Things have changed a lot since then, but I still think it would be impossible for a gay man to become Prime Minister.

But I do know what people mean about Liberal Democrat campaigning - it is amazingly two-faced and ruthless. Around 1984, I remember being canvassed by Chris Huhne - another present LD leadership candidate. Through the thin walls of university digs, I could hear him telling a flatmate, a Tory, how he should vote SDP to keep the crazy Labour Party out. He then he came to me and tried to tell me how important it was to vote SDP to get Thatcher out. I was gobsmacked at the apparent lack of principles, from a man whose writing on economics etc is rather good.

:scared: Shock horror..politicians are duplicitous and mendacious ~:shock: ...well I'll go tut foot of our stairs* :laugh4:

*Yorkshirespeak translated as: gosh I am surprised.

Quote:

---

I remember the Tories harping on 'moral basics' all the time during the nineties whilst ignoring them rather massively in office

---

There is an interesting tale behind "back to basics", as you may know, in that it was originally conceived as a slogan for essentially economic policy, and the perception that it was about morality came about from an unscripted (and incorrect) answer at a press conference.

Mind you it could have been disowned shortly after that I admit. I have to say I don't recall quite as much harping on about moral issues as you do but I may be wrong. I DO recall a lot of cant from the press about how anyone who had ever used a picture of his family in an election leaflet was thereby asserting family values, so it was in the "public interest" to publish details of their adultery. Yeah, right. Funny how its not in the "public interest" to publish the extra-martial relations of journalists who write pieces exposing the sex lives of others in defence of family values, isn't it?

Even the Winchester LD MP and his rent boys strikes me of only marginal public interest, although I guess the fact that it involved prostitution just about tips the scales.

As for Charlie, I think we are confusing whether being an alcoholic makes him a bad person (no) with whether it makes him unable to do his job (it seems so) and whether it was bad of him to put himself forward as a notional PM when in fact he had a condition which interferred with his ability to fufil the role (yes, although I admit I'm expecting quite a high standard here and we don't know when he admitted to himself he had a problem.)

As for the LD campaigning, I've only see it from the other side of course, but it drives me mad. The usual technique seems to be some dubious poll designed to show that "Only the LDs can beat Labour/Tories round here" (even if they are in fact massively in third place), hijacking some local campaign and pretending it is theirs, and criticising the other parties for attacking each other while the LDs put the boot in with holier than thou expressions.

Give me the socialist workers and a bit of class war any day. At least they are honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

There is an interesting tale behind "back to basics", as you may know, in that it was originally conceived as a slogan for essentially economic policy, and the perception that it was about morality came about from an unscripted (and incorrect) answer at a press conference.

---

Oh, is that what they call it today? Well well.

I distinctly remember how your little prick of a Prime Minister and his minions suddenly began speeching about law and order, education and most of all 'public probity' in 1993, right after Black Wednesday. Black Wednesday had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Tories were unable to handle public finance. 'Back to Basics' was meant to divert attention from the economy more than anything else.

As the main target of their 'public probity' drive these heroes chose to tackle single mothers. Why single mothers? Because they are essentially defenceless; most of them are burdened down by financial troubles, bad housing, social isolation. And they have no unions, no pressure groups to fight back.

Also as part of the drive, sex manuals were banned because they promulgated 'loose morals'. Health Minister Edwina Currie banned a booklet commissioned by her own department, calling it 'smutty'.

Of course it was only years later that we learned that the selfsame Mr Major had been shoving his minor up the selfsame Mrs Currie for several years at a time when the two of them were married. To someone else, that is.

Long before that revelation of course we had been through

• David Mellor's extra-marital affair with actress Antonia de Sancha
• Tim Yeo's extra-marital affair resulting in a "love-child"
• Stephen Milligan's 'auto-erotic asphyxiation' (remember his entire cupboard being confiscated and removed for investigation by the Police?)
• Neil Hamilton's cash for Mohammed Al-Fayed's questions
• Jonathan Aitken's procurement of prostitutes for Arab businessmen, and his prison sentence for perjury
• Hartley Booth's sexual stalking of his secretary
• Piers Merchant's affair with a night club hostess

Economic policy my foot.

EA's perception of that particular era of politics may be a little off. With the electorate it does not matter what you say, only what they are told.

Kennedy had no need to step down after admitting his problem while actively seeking help. Political assination is never pretty, especially in a party which plays on its fluffly, friendly image. The whole affair did more damage than any homosexual outings could ever do.

Revelations of Oaten's affair with a rentboy will probably destroy his chances of re-election in middle class Winchester. Trust me I have lived there. It may also destroy his personal life, which is tragic for anyone. It does not make him a worse MP though. He has worked hard for his constituents and, I believe, deserves a chance.

Hughes on the other hand has lied about his sexual preferences. So, maybe he is bisexual rather than homosexual. Sure, he is single so he has no wife and kids to betray, but he has lied to the public, to the electorate. His sexual behaviour in no way compromises his duty as an MP. Lying, however, is not on. However, honest or not, the end result is much the same.

But, it is our fault, the media and the public. Fidelity in politicians is, in my opinion, vital to the continuation of democracy. All the while we punish the truth there is no reason for politicans to use it.