Simon Hughes

[econ21]

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.

[InsaneApache]

Shock horror..politicians are duplicitous and mendacious ...well I'll go tut foot of our stairs*

*Yorkshirespeak translated as: gosh I am surprised.

[English assassin]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Slyspy]

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.