Thursday, January 26, 2006

Continued Support

As I said earlier this week being bisexual is no reason to exclude anyone from being a member, candidate or even leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Therefore the news that Simon Hughes has ‘had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in the past’ does not disqualify him from seeking the highest post in the party. I just wish that Simon had come cleaner about this earlier when asked the question but am relieved that now the rumours and speculation is out of the way.

It is therefore with pride that I continue to endorse Simon Hughes’ candidacy for the party leadership.

Now can we get the agenda back to talking about policy and the future direction of the party.


Anonymous said...

The fact that he's bisxual might not rule him out, (and nor should it), but what about the fact that he lied about it twice in the past week, and also apologised on Newsnight for the way his campaign against Peter Tatchell had had distinctly homophobic overtones? (the "straight choice", anyone?)

Susanne said...

Fully agree with you

Stephen Glenn said...

As I did say I wish he had come clean baout this earlier rather than make the denials that anon mentioned.

However, while the press argue that they have a right to know, how much privacy can someone in the public eye and more to the point their partners recieve if they are not breaking any laws and decide to keep some privacy in their lives. I doubt that the pursuit of Simon by the Sun on this issue can under any criteria be deemed as necessary for the public good.

Susanne said...

I couldn't care less about his sexuality. He is a single man and up to last week I didn't know his s-pref was a secret. Just something not talked about which is how it should be.

It is just the timing of his being open and frank that is disturbing. It becomes a talking issue which I hope by next week will go away.

I'm certainly not going to change my mind about supporting him.

Stephen Glenn said...

Here, here. Exactly my thoughts Susanne, doesn't change a thing. I hope by tomorrow it will go away rather than next week.

And looking at our fellow bloggers they appear to be doing just that.

Tristan said...

I wasn't going to support him anyway, however this would make little difference to my support if he had it.
I am a little concerned that he basically denied it, but I am hugely gratified that the overwhelming view of the party is that his sexuality does not matter.

I dislike both the pressure from gay activists to 'come out' and the sort of questioning you get from the media.

Angus J Huck said...

The fact that Simon lied about his sexual orientation matters little, in my estimation. He shouldn't have been asked the question in the first place.

Tony Blair lied about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to persuade Parliament and the British people of the need to go to war. Which lie is the more serious?

It wasn't the Liberal Party which introduced homophobia into the Bermondsey byelection. That was the work of two individuals: (1) former Labour councillor, John O'Grady, who stood as an independent candidate. He was a vicious, embittered man, and his campaign was vituperative in the extreme. But he was squeezed by the Liberals and got a derisory vote. And (2) Michael Foot, who denounced his party's own candidate ex cathedra. It was actually Foot's comments which alerted the tabloids to Tatchell's sexuality, if my memory serves me right.


Related Posts with Thumbnails