Editorial: Is everyone a Portillista now? No.

Francis Maude will tell today's conference that the Conservative Party must "change or die".  But Mr Maude arrives in Blackpool with his stock very low.  Post-election periods are not happy times for Francis Maude. He was responsible for directing Michael Portillo’s unsuccessful 2001 leadership bid and has just overseen the defeat of Michael Howard’s post-election reforms to party procedure. He appears to be seeking consolation in the idea that he was right in 2001 and that we are all Portillistas now:

Ollie Stone-Lee, reporting for BBCi: “Does [Francis Maude] think the battle for the agenda pursued by Mr Portillo’s [2001] campaign has been won?”

Francis Maude:”I think broadly yes.”

I think broadly ‘no’. Superficially there appears to have been a lot of acceptance of Michael Portillo’s leadership manifesto but on many substantial questions there remains enormous disagreement. Take four key features of Mr Portillo’s thinking, starting with the one where consensus might be thought to be greatest:

Candidate diversity: Nearly all accept the Portillo belief in a candidate selection policy that seeks more people who can ably represent today’s Britain. Whereas MP stressed more blacks, gays and women, today’s leadership contenders are prioritising people from local communities and candidates who have worked in the public services or the voluntary sector. Portillo’s face-deep diversity can only deliver a limited kind of progress if we end up with black barristers, female merchant bankers and gay men who have never worked outside of the Westminster village.

Social liberalism: The party leadership has moved in a socially liberal direction with support, for example, for gay partnerships but the approach has two main weaknesses. Few voters think it matters. When the Centre for Social Justice/ YouGov asked voters who were society’s most vulnerable members gay people hardly registered. Pensioners, children, people with mental illnesses and those living in crime-ridden inner cities were peoples’ top concerns. The other main weakness is that there can be big tensions between a genuinely compassionate conservatism and a socially liberal conservatism. The Portillistas’ support for drug liberalisation and indifference to the importance of the family are only like to abet socially destructive forces. The fact that all of the leading candidates (except Ken Clarke) are advocating support for marriage and all (except David Cameron) are intolerant of drug use suggests that the party is not so Portillista.

War on terror: Michael Portillo began as a supporter of the war in Iraq but, for last November’s US elections, he ended up advocating a vote for the flip-flopping John ‘Wrong War At The Wrong Time In The Wrong Place’ Kerry. It is now difficult to find any coherent anti-terror strategy in his meandering columns on the subject. The lack of coherence may be the one area where the Conservative Party, as a whole, may, indeed, have become Portillista.

Party discipline: And, finally, let’s hope few Conservatives are adopting the Portillista-approach to “loyalty”. He briefed against John Major throughout the Maastricht years whilst serving as one of his ministers. He battled against William Hague’s strategy when he was Mr Hague’s Shadow Chancellor. He launched broadside attacks on Iain Duncan Smith’s leadership. He used his Sunday Times column to regularly criticise Michael Howard. Many of those criticisms were justified but they were less than helpful in the run-up to an election. And where MP himself was unhelpful his ‘Portillista’ disciples were regularly very corrosive with their constant briefings to journalists.

Comments

[Selsdon Man]

"The Portillistas’ support for drug liberalisation and indifference to the importance of the family are only like to abet socially destructive forces."

Please give examples, I cannot think of any other than Alan Duncan. I agree with most of your article.

[malcolm]

I was as angry with Maude as anyone over the members/leadership fiasco but I was delighted to hear him sounding quite impressive on Radio 5 yesterday seemingly dropping the self loathing mantra he had and actually singing the praises of members for a change.
He also made a very appropiate call for the candidates to refrain from personal attacks on each other.Hear,hear Francis.

[Selsdon Man]

"He also made a very appropiate call for the candidates to refrain from personal attacks on each other.Hear,hear Francis."

Certain MPs should stop insulting the membership who work hard and raise money for the Party - and the candidates that they select too.

[James Hellyer]

"The party leadership has moved in a socially liberal direction with support, for example, for gay partnerships but the approach has two main weaknesses..."

Does this mean you think the party shouldn't support civil unions for gay couples?

[Rob]

"When the Centre for Social Justice/ YouGov asked voters who were society’s most vulnerable members gay people hardly registered. Pensioners, children, people with mental illnesses and those living in crime-ridden inner cities were peoples’ top concerns."

Personally, my support for gay partnerships has nothing to do with vulnerability and everything to do with fairness and acceptance.

No survey was ever going to show that gay people are seen as more vulnerable than the other groups you mentioned - in fact, I think the question was daft to begin with, and your conclusion even more so.

For what it's worth though, mental illness is disproportionately high amonst the gay community - maybe they at least can qualify for your brand of compassion?

[James Maskell]

Francis Maude is now in reverse, desperate to cover the fact that it was he who held the Party membership in such a low regard. I cant trust him. It needs a lot more than just words to win me over.

[Alan Tinning]

Thank you James Hellyer for beating me to the point.

I get really quite irked by the implication on this site that the homosexual righs agenda is part of a push for 'face-deep diversity'. Ofcourse it's important for the Conservative Party to demonstrate that it will not actively discriminate against homosexuals, when it's treatment of this community in the past has been, either indifferent,or, positively mallicious.

It has clearly never occured to the editor that marginilising homosexuals and their reltionships actually damages individual, family and society. Your definition of marriage and family seems just wide enough to conveniently leave homosexuals out. I can't think of any 'justified' reason for this. The Tory part should take a lead in remedying injustice for homosexuals by proposing Same Sex Civil Marriage as a replacement for Civil Partnerships.

[Midnight Blue]

Never was there a truer comment than made by Alan! Certain individuals or groups within the party seem to want to keep making gay people feel isolated from society, which is not only cruel and unjustified but on a practical level costs the party votes

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Now hang on a second, let's not get carried away here! The Editor's actual quote was:

"The party leadership has moved in a socially liberal direction with support, for example, for gay partnerships but the approach has two main weaknesses."

Note the Editor does not say we should not offer support for gay partnerships, merely that the approach we have taken to moving in a socially liberal direction has two main weaknesses.

I agree with the Editor's point that gay people are not amongst society's most vulnerable people however this is missing the point. As Rob says, "support for gay partnerships has nothing to do with vulnerability and everything to do with fairness and acceptance".

If the Editor's point is that our first priority in moving to a more socially liberal approach should be reaching out to the most vulnerable people in society instead of pandering to the gay rights lobby then he's correct. We have a moral duty to protect and help those most vulnerable in society and we should be seen to address this issue first instead of quibbling about what level of civil recognition should be afforded to same-sex relationships.

[Midnight Blue]

It's a burning issue for the people affected by it though Daniel, and it wouldnt take a great deal of effort or time to just state our support for them

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It's a burning issue for the people affected by it though Daniel, and it wouldnt take a great deal of effort or time to just state our support for them"

It's a burning issue for people who choose to make it a burning issue. I'm not saying it would take a great deal of effort or time to state support, I'm saying there are more important issues which risk being sidelined because we're focusing too much on tying ourselves in knots about deciding how far backwards we bend over for the gay rights lobby.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Oh God, I've just realised that was a really unfortunate choice of words in my last line! No offence intended!

[James Hellyer]

Well, that stopped me pointing it out...

Any reference made on conservativehome to gay issues leaves me with the distinct impression that gay people are a begrudged afterthought in the bold new Conservative world envisaged.I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

Three crucial points I would like to make:

1. I don't assume that the Editor/contributors to this site are raging homophobes. The site does however wreak of a lack of understanding of gay issues.

2. Protecting the vulnerable and redressing injustice for homosexuals are not mutually exclusive tasks. I would be quite happy for the former cause to be promoted much more vigorously than the latter, as long as both are dealt with. Helping gay people doesn't mean not helping the elderly or mentally ill. In fact these are overlapping things.

Tidying up marriage law to permit same sex marriage would be a straight-forward task which would consume very little Parliamentary time. I don't think it's 'pandering' to afford people rights they should never have been denied in the first place.

3.Midnight Blue said"I'm saying there are more important issues which risk being sidelined because we're focusing too much on tying ourselves in knots about deciding how far backwards we bend over for the gay rights lobby."

Rubbish!(see point 2)This statement tipifies the pervading 'grudging' attitude of Conservatives in respect of gay issues. I really don't think it's too much for gay people to ask to have access to institutions which non child rearing, as well as child rearing, heterosexuals enjoy free access to. Equal treatment rather than special treatment isn't too much to ask for surely?

Alan

[Michael McGowan]

I would have more respect for the Portilistas if they devoted less time to banging on about gay rights (as it so happens, I share most of their views) and devoted some proper attention to dealing with the shocking effects in terms of poverty and illness which flow from drug abuse, violent crime and marital breakdown. That would be a genuine litmus test of their much-trumpeted love of the vulnerable, rather than posing in fashionable London restaurants with their Fleet Street hangers-on.

Chairman Maode's performance over the past few months has been disastrous, and has starkly illustrated his skin-deep commitment to party democracy. He of all people is not best placed to lecture others about sniping at candidates. His most constructive contribution now would be a prolonged period of silence.

[Gary Monro]

Surely the ultimate in liberalism would be to regard homosexuals' sexuality as being about as relevent as anybody else's heterosexuality - ie not very relevent at all - and ignore it in favour of more important topics.

As with race, it's only an issue when you start noticing it. And it's always a distraction from subjects that really matter to people regardless of sexuality.

[Sean Fear]

I think the dominant view amongst Conservatives is one of indifference or mild disapproval towards gay issues, which really mirrors the opinion among the population as a whole.

One can argue about the rights and wrongs, but the issue itself probably swings fewer votes than, say, fox hunting or vivisection.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Please don't misrepresent my views Alan. I had a very long and repetitive argument with somebody else yesterday who deliberately misrepresented my views to suit his own argumentative purposes and it's getting very tiresome having to constantly clarify my views because somebody has twisted them, misrepresented them or deliberately ignored them.

"Any reference made on conservativehome to gay issues leaves me with the distinct impression that gay people are a begrudged afterthought in the bold new Conservative world envisaged.I'd be delighted to be proved wrong."

Any reference? Including your own? I'm sorry if my reference to gay issues left you with the distinct impression that gay people are a begrudged afterthought but I can assure you that is most certainly not the case and I find your comment both impertinent and offensive, in much the same way as I found Jack Stone's slur on UKIP voters as right-wing bigots offensive.

"I don't assume that the Editor/contributors to this site are raging homophobes. The site does however wreak of a lack of understanding of gay issues."

I didn't say you did assume that. I merely pointed out what the Editor said in the opening post to this thread.

"Protecting the vulnerable and redressing injustice for homosexuals are not mutually exclusive tasks... Helping gay people doesn't mean not helping the elderly or mentally ill."

I never said they were mutually exclusive. My point was that our duty to protect and help the most vulnerable in society is more important than quibbling over the level of civil recognition afforded to same-sex relationships but the latter could get in the way of the former by focusing too much on it.

"I would be quite happy for the former cause to be promoted much more vigorously than the latter, as long as both are dealt with."

I'm glad you agree with me.

"Tidying up marriage law to permit same sex marriage would be a straight-forward task which would consume very little Parliamentary time. I don't think it's 'pandering' to afford people rights they should never have been denied in the first place."

As pointed out above, there are more important priorities that should be allowed to come first but by allowing gay rights to supercede these other priorities does indicate that the gay rights lobby is being pandered to.

"Midnight Blue said"I'm saying there are more important issues which risk being sidelined because we're focusing too much on tying ourselves in knots about deciding how far backwards we bend over for the gay rights lobby.""

I think you'll find I said that, not Midnight Blue.

"Rubbish!(see point 2)This statement tipifies the pervading 'grudging' attitude of Conservatives in respect of gay issues."

As I said before, I don't have a grudging attitude in respect of gay issues and I find your suggestion that I do have such an attitude offensive. I also don't understand how you can call my point rubbish when you yourself say "I would be quite happy for the former cause to be promoted much more vigorously than the latter, as long as both are dealt with".

"I really don't think it's too much for gay people to ask to have access to institutions which non child rearing, as well as child rearing, heterosexuals enjoy free access to. Equal treatment rather than special treatment isn't too much to ask for surely?"

Are you still referring to civil recognition of same-sex relationships or have we moved on to gay adoption now? In either case I didn't actually express an opinion on whether it was too much to ask for, my point was that there are other priorities which are more pressing.

[Alan Tinning]

Posted by: Michael McGowan
"Surely the ultimate in liberalism would be to regard homosexuals' sexuality as being about as relevent as anybody else's heterosexuality - ie not very relevent at all - and ignore it in favour of more important topics."

I agree with this for the most part. Correct the remaining inconsistencies in the law and then leave it mainly up to civil society to do it's thing. However I do think the Tories should refrain from vilifying gay people and their relationships.

I can buy the argument that the strategy of 'being nice to gays' is not a panacea and is superficial if offered up as such. It is though an important plank of what some of us like to call, gee I don't know, being good and decent people.

[Rob]

Daniel, unless I missed something obvious, Alan was just describing his own opinion about how he thinks gay issues come across on this forum, and apart from the quote of yours in section 3 of his post, the points he made weren't even explicitly aimed at you.

So I don't get why you needed to rebut him as if he was attacking you, and accuse him of misrepresenting you.

Daniel, no offence was intended- far from it. I was arguing with you, yes, but that is the point of debate.

As Rob pointed out, my intial comment was not directed at you but instead was referring to the house opinion of conservativehome.com. If my posts are slightly erractic in organisation and ambigious in content it's because I've had 3 hours sleep.

"My point was that our duty to protect and help the most vulnerable in society is more important than quibbling over the level of civil recognition afforded to same-sex relationships but the latter could get in the way of the former by focusing too much on it."

My position is that gay rights issues are less pressing than some issues and more pressing than others. I don't think the Tory party should quibble over same sex reltionships I think it should be decisive. The gay rights agenda can be addressed in an understated, unfussy fashion without having to detract from more heart grabbing issues for the population at large.

"... by allowing gay rights to supercede these other priorities does indicate that the gay rights lobby is being pandered to."

It's the fact that you refer to gay folk seeking redress for genuine grievences to be 'pandering' that I do find objectionable. I see it as no more pandering than for OAPs to campaign on issues of financial hardship which affect their lives.

"I'm saying there are more important issues which risk being sidelined because we're focusing too much on tying ourselves in knots about deciding how far backwards we bend over for the gay rights lobby.""

I do object to this comment, which I falsely attributed to someone else, sorry (Midnight Blue). Why is it bending over backwards to help gay people and not to help women or the elderly, is my point? Can we not extend our attention to the plight of many individuals & groups?

"Are you still referring to civil recognition of same-sex relationships or have we moved on to gay adoption now? In either case I didn't actually express an opinion on whether it was too much to ask for, my point was that there are other priorities which are more pressing."

I was referring to all gay rights issues which involve the state explicitly prohibiting homosexuals from doing things like getting married. That no longer refers to adoption which has already been decided on.I do think it should be a priority for a Tory government to elevate homosexuals from a status in law, which is less than equal, to one which is nothing but.

Alan

[Alan Tinning]

Posted by: Sean Fear

"I think the dominant view amongst Conservatives is one of indifference or mild disapproval towards gay issues, which really mirrors the opinion among the population as a whole."

I'm not sure that's the case in the country at least. Certainly not amongst the under 30s. Don't know of any stats in this coutry but the majority of young folk in the states support same sex marriage. And if Catholic Spain is gushing in it's support of the government's institution of same sex marriage then I can't see more liberal Britain having a disimilar attitude.

And besides Gary, some issues are not crowd pleasers but are right and just to pursue nonetheless.

p.s.Loved Alan Duncan's speech today. Loved the scowls on the faces of some in the audience even more;)It's fun to ruffle feathers, no?

Alan

[AnotherNick]

"p.s.Loved Alan Duncan's speech today. Loved the scowls on the faces of some in the audience even more;)"

I was impressed by his speech too. Putting aside the blatent swipes at Liam Fox, I thought Duncan came across very well. Far better than hearing him refering to the "Tory Taleban".

[Robbie]

I disagree with the assumption that gay issues are marginal. They matter a great deal --- not just to gay people and their families --- because the churlish and surly Tory attitude towards gay rights has become symbolic of a wider failure of Conservative imagination to get to grips with the way we live now. Being at ease with the gay issue would help the Party reconnect with the group that has most dramatically deserted it: 20 and 30-something professionals to whom homophobia or even the whiff of it is now close to being regarded as unacceptable as racism. (Unfortunate phrases like "pandering to the gay rights' lobby", however they are intentioned, come across as off-putting and aggressively Daily Mailish. What do people mean by the sinister-sounding "gay rights lobby"? Stonewall, as far as I know, isn't trying to turn the nation's children gay or seize privileges for gays)
Furthermore, the "gay" debate, on such issues as age of consent and civil partnerships, could have been dead and buried years ago if crusty Tory peers and a minority on the backbenches in the Commons had not been so obstructive in denying simple equality before the law. I fear it is the cranky wing of authoritarian Tories that is obsessed with gays, not the modernisers

[Editor]

My point about homosexual candidates is simply that they only amount to one dimension of diversity. They can be good - as Nick Herbert and Nicholas Boles are/were - but they can be dreadful (just like anyone else). I'm unhappy at the obsession with gay candidates in much of the metropolitan media and much of the Conservative Party. How many times have you heard about the need for the Conservatives to have candidates representing Britain's booming black-led churches when compared to the times that the need for more gay candidates has been discussed? How many times has the BBC or the uber-modernisers discussed the need for the party to have more candidates with experience of working in the NHS or the charity world?

It is interesting that I mentioned a lot of issues in the post above and the thread has focused almost exclusively on homosexuality. It kind of confirms my view that we are imbalanced in our interest in the subject. I think we must be a tolerant and inclusive party but let's put more effort into discussing third world debt, inner city decay and pensioner poverty etc...