Bush shows love to gay Congressman

I wrote this story today. It made me smile.

It was a moment of affection between two politicians, and in normal circumstances it would pass unnoticed.

But when one is the only out gay man in Congress and the other a President who has revelled in his hostility to gay marriage, their closeness raises eyebrows.

After his final State of the Union address to both Houses of Congress on Monday, President George W Bush greeted Congressman Barney Frank with a shoulder and head touch, as the two shared a personal moment.

Fox News commentator Brit Hume felt moved to point it out, without saying the word 'gay':

"Hold on a second, what we just saw there was an interesting moment, a moment of friendship and almost affection between the President and none other than Barney Frank.

"Who I think it's fair to say is one of the most liberal Members of Congress, also one of the smartest guys up there, but, uh..."

His co-host Nina Easton was quick to point out that Congressman Frank has co-operated closely with the White House as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

It later emerged that Frank had encountered the President before his speech.

On the phone to his boyfriend while waiting the Speaker's Lobby, Frank was approached by the President, who leaned in and said "tell him I said hello."

The affectionate exchange captured by the cameras after the President's speech was in fact the Congressman saying:

"Mr. President, by the way, the person I was talking to when you said to say hello was my boyfriend."

"Well. I hope you said how open-minded I am," was Bush's response.

"I considered telling [the President] I wouldn't marry him," Frank told the Boston Globe, "but then I thought, 'Nah.'"

President Bush has tried to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage, while Mr Frank's home state of Massachusetts is the only one in the US to have legalised it.

Congressman Frank has represented the 4th District of Massachusetts since 1981, and is one of two out gay people in the House of Representatives.

Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Congresswoman, is the only lesbian in the House.

An outsider in Congress Frank, a Harvard-educated lawyer, has a sharp tongue and is consistently voted one of the funniest members of the House.

He came out in 1987, and his political opponents have tried to smear and unseat him on many occasions.

Many opponents thought he was politically dead after a rent boy scandal in 1990.

Attempts to expel him failed - the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him instead.

The people of his district stuck with him through the scandal - he won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote. In 2006 he ran unopposed.

In 1998, he founded the National Stonewall Democrats, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democratic pressure group.

He has been a vocal and articulate defender of LGBT rights. Speaking out against the Federal Marriage Act, which would have amended the US Constitution to ban gay marriage, he said:

"We're told "don't take things personally", but I take this personally. I take it personally when people decide to take political batting practice with my life."

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6713.html

Things move fast as Conway (sort of) resigns

Well , it has been a turbulent few days for Tory MP Derek Conway.

There he are, revelling in his anonymity, a figure of intense apathy among his constituents, and then a scandal rolls into view.

First he was censured for paying his younger son tens of thousands of pounds in public money for "work" for which there is no evidence.

Then he had to make a grovelly speech in the Commons apologising for effectively defrauding the tax payer.

That should have put an end to it all, except revelations come to light that he may have also had a previous similar arrangement with your elder son. And his wife also works for him.

Suddenly Tory leader David Cameron is withdrawing the whip, while opponents talk of police investigations.

Today Derek Conway effectively ended his career, annoucing that he would be stepping down at the next election.

Dozens of MPs who employ family members are jittery. Most of the A List of Tory candidates will be descending upon Old Bexley and Sidcup looking to take over this plum safe seat.

Poor old Derek. Only a week ago he must have been pretty confident of his career. Now it's over

As one wit put it, perhaps he is leaving to spend more time with his staff.

Here is how he explained his decision:

I have had tremendous support from my local party, my family and friendsbut have concluded that it is time to step down.

I stand by what I havesaid in relation to the report by the Commissioner of Standards and do not wish to add to those comments at this time.

Since joining the Conservative Party nearly 40 years ago I have had the privilege of serving in public office since 1974 and have done so to the best of my ability.

I have advised the Chief Whip and the chairman of my local Conservative Association that I shall not seek to continue as the Conservative Party Candidate for Old Bexley and Sidcup at the next election.

Though not an original supporter of David Cameron for the leadership of my party, I believe that he has shown he has both the ability and the character to be Prime Ministerof our country and I do not wish my personal circumstances to be a distraction in any way from the real issues that have to be addressed.

John Edwards will be missed

A significant day in the US Presidential nomination circus, as John Edwards withdraws from the Democrat race and Rudy Giuliani looking almost certain to pull out of the Republican one.

This leaves four contenders left - talk of Ralph Nader running again on an independent anti-corporatist ticket has excited no-one.

It is sad to see two candidates I could have felt quite comfortable seeing sworn in as President leave the field.

Giuliani has always been a friend to gay people, and as he took hits for it in Republican circles I respected him for not trying to tack Right.

He was an outstanding Mayor of New York, before, during and after September 11th, and his support for limited abortion marked him out as a man of principle.

I am more saddened by the news that John Edwards has given up on his White House dream so early in the race.

Initially I was unimpressed with him, taking him for a Tom Cruise clone with a strange voice. However, the more I saw him in action the more I came to form the highest opinion of his stance on poverty.

It is immoral and disgusting that millions of Americans, many of them children, live in poverty. I hope that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were sincere when they said they would continue his work in office.

I think he would make an excellent Vice Presidential candidate, especially for Obama, and I also hope he comes out in favour of the Illinois Senator.

During the televised debate on Martin Luther King day earlier this month, Edwards certainly appeared to have more in common with Obama than Clinton and they made an effective team against her.

As for whether or not it helps Hillary or Barack on Super Tuesday next week, I don't really know enough to comment, except to say I hope that the progressives who were all for Edwards will recognise that Barack Obama is the candidate of change.

As for the Republicans, it seems increasingly likely that they will choose John McCain as their candidate. "Mad" Mitt Romney is disturbingly popular, but only with Republicans, and not even with all of them, on account of the Mormon thing.

McCain is a good candidate - for the 1988 election. At 71, he is by far the oldest candidate and was already 35, the age required to run for President, when the boy Barack was born.

He is a war hero, a fiscal conservative and a former prisoner of war. I have the highest respect for him - he is exactly the sort of figure that should be in the Senate.

I suspect that is where he will remain.

Conway scandal delights Labour

Every Labour member I spoke today could barely contain their glee at revelations that Tory MP Derek Conway had paid his son close to £45,000 as a “researcher,” despite there being no evidence the boy had done any work.

Indeed, considering he was studying full time in Newcastle, some distance from both Parliament and his father’s outer London constituency, it is hard to imagine what substantive contribution he could have made.

To be sure, the scandal has taken the spotlight off Labour – in the last news cycle Gordon Brown was having to stand up for Alan Johnson in the face of another scandal about deputy leadership campaign donations.

The PM must have wished there had never been a deputy election.

The Conway scandal is much more serious than the Hain incident, and it is telling that it took David Cameron a day to decide to remove the whip from Conway.

A spokesman for the Tory leader was saying yesterday: "Derek Conway has apologised fully on the floor of the House.

"The whip will not be withdrawn. The proper punishment has been administered."

Today, the Leader of the Opposition said that he has reconsidered and apparently realised that the offence was so great (the offence being moving the spotlight away from Labour sleaze) that Conway would receive the ultimate punishment.

Wasn’t it David Cameron who solemnly declared just the other day that the PM had dithered in not removing Hain from office before the Electoral Commission referred his campaign donations to the police?

Now it appears poor Conway also had a similar arrangement with his elder son, Henry.

I am sure you have seen a picture of Henry. A very flamboyant-looking young man in my view.

Look, there he is with former Eastenders starlet and Cockney sparrow Martine McCutcheon.

He has variously been described as a fashion writer, a club promoter, a “socialite” and, in the inimitable words of the Daily Mail, “he is a regular at gay clubs frequented by Elton John and David Furnish, and once described himself as "blond, bouncy and one for the boys."”

Fabulous!

In any case, it appears that Mr Conway’s generosity will spell the end of a Parliamentary career that began in 1983.

We will have to wait and see if Peter Hain can clear his name – it is unlikely he will be asked to rejoin the Cabinet.

So far Harriet Harman, Peter Hain and Alan Johnson have been accused of improperly declaring donations to their campaigns for deputy leader.

Labour MPs must be hoping that Hilary Benn, Hazel Blears and Jon Cruddas were more diligent.

Caroline Kennedy comes out for Obama

Here is the opinion piece Caroline, the only living child of former US President John F Kennedy, wrote for today's New York Times:

A President Like My Father.

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years.

And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged.

As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Obama has to be the next President

We always knew the race to the White House in 2008 would be exciting. With no incumbent President or Vice President in contention, the field in both parties is wide open.

I have always been a huge fan of Barack Obama, and I was heartened to read the opinion piece written by President Kennedy's only daughter Caroline in the New York Times today. It seems she agrees with me that he is a once-in-a-generation figure, a man who can bring hope and effect profound change in America and by extension the world.

Of course, my good mood is also because yesterday in South Carolina the wheels came off the Clinton bandwagon. For all the carping about blacks voting for Obama, his 2 to 1 victory over Hillary was a victory for the sort of campaign that the young African-American has chosen to run.

For the past week, Bill Clinton, like the 90s relic he is, has been indulging in attack dog-campaigning. He implied that Obama was untrustworthy.

He bitched about his lack of Washington experience, ironic coming from a man who arrived at the White House with half of the cast of the Beverly Hillbillies, and whose political knowledge extended no further than the backwater state he had been born in.

He compared him to Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 88 primaries (subtext: he can win all the black votes he wants, only Hillary can take whites).

Bill squandered vast amounts of his political capital in his nasty campaigning - and it failed. It turned the voters off, and many in his own party are furious with him for adopting campaign tactics more associated with the Bush White House.

Meanwhile the most Presidential looking person in the race continues to be Obama. I suspect that many voters know he is up against Bill and Hillary in this election, and I think it can only work to his advantage.

People like the underdog and Americans, for all your negative opinions about them, do believe in their future, do think their country can be better, and do like to give hope a chance.

After all, the people who should know that most are the Clintons.

As we move towards Super Tuesday, it is Bill and Hillary who increasing look like the establishment couple, and Barack and Michelle who most resemble America in the 21st century.

Gordon shuffles his cards

Peter Hain's resignation in the wake of the Electoral Commission's decision to ask the police to look into donations to his deputy leadership campaign is overdue.

The revelations ruined the government's attempt to gain the upper hand in the New Year, made the whole party seem sleazy and thrust the loans/donations rows back into the public eye.

The PM talking about 'incompetence' really did not help matters.

With his departure comes lots of news stories about the new generation of Labour leaders - Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and James Purnell all favoured with high-profile roles.

But when you look across at the shadow Cabinet, it still makes a lot of Brown's team look like old hands.

Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Theresa Villiers and Nick Herbert all became MPs at the last election.

As did the new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

The challenge of the next year for Labour will be to demonstrate to the electorate that they are dynamic and capable of profound change.

It is not even an issue of age as such - after all Ruth Kelly is not yet 40, but it feels like she has been at the heart of the government for many years.

Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander and Ed and David Miliband are all young, but not in any way new. That being said, there does not seem to be a serious rival to Gordon Brown among any of them.

For a decade the Labour party and the public knew that Tony Blair would be succeeded by Gordon Brown. But who will be the next leader?

For the rising stars, the next twelve months will be critical in establishing themselves not so much as the heirs to new Labour but as someone who can take on David Cameron and win.

The cabal around Ken

Although I think he has done his fair share of bad things, I am a bit of a fan of Ken Livingstone.

Why?

Because he is a proper Londoner. He likes a drink of whisky when he is answering Assembly questions? Good lad.

He accurately reflects the cheeky, lairy and cocky instincts of many of us in this city.

Channel 4 did their best with their expose documentary about Ken to dig some serious dirt, but I have to say that if all they could find after eight years in office was a bit of boozing, a streak of arrogance and some dodgy loans to dodgy community projects, then Ken must be cleaner than I thought.

The most hilarious part of the "expose" however, was the revelation that Ken had surrounded himself with a cabal of former Socialist Alliance comrades and - get this - employed them AND paid them salaries.

As I lay in bed this morning listening to Ken on the Today programme, I was amused by the thought that, in adopting the same alarmist tone that Martin Bright did in his Channel 4 hack job, you could make anyone sound sinister.

"A member of a tiny elite who think they are born to rule, he siezed control of the Conservatives when they were at their lowest ebb.

"Vandalising this once-great party, he moved quickly to surround himself with like-minded cronies.

"Committed to fanatical market solutions, he has learned, at least in public, to temper his hard Thatcherite views.

"However, with his gang, their committment to capitalism and the overthrow of the Blair/Brown consensus remains undimmed.

"There is Boris, a fellow member of the secretive Bullingdon Club, on over 60k a year in a sinecure job for life as MP for Henley.

"Two-brains Gove, feared for his ability to rip opponents apart.

"The intimdating figure of Nick Boles, a man who manipulates policy to suit the new, rightwing agenda.

"All of these men were close to Cameron as he plotted his rise to power, most of them given highly-paid jobs at Westminster, the better to advance their leader's cynical agenda."

Easy.

Why we should pay MPs £100,000 a year

Tomorrow MPs will get to vote on their own pay rise. Nice work if you can get it.

They are likely to ignore the advice of Downing St for prudence and a 1.9% rise and vote themselves the 2.8% recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

At present MPs get paid £60,675.

I think they deserve more. In fact, I would suggest that they get a much bigger rise than that – perhaps bringing them into line with GPs, who are routinely earning £100,000.

However, there are two caveats attached to this pay rise. For a start, at least half of them need to go.

There are an astonishing 646 MPs at the moment.

All political parties are full of useless, faceless nobodies cluttering up the benches. We need bigger constituencies and less MPs.

By all means increase their office expenses, as long as they prove they are employing researchers for their researching skills.

You do see a lot of suspiciously hot young boys and girls floating around the corridors, in addition to which the vast bulk of researchers have solid party connections, as opposed to solid casework skills. Let’s not even begin to discuss the levels of nepotism attached to many jobs in Parliament.
The second caveat is that no MP should be allowed to accept money from any outside institution. Back in the day being an MP was kind of like voluntary work.

Gentlemen would attend to their profession (if they had something as common as a profession) in the mornings and then spend their afternoons and evenings at the House ruling over the British Empire.

In fact, the very first regular salary for MPs was instituted in 1911 to benefit the newly-elected Labour members who were in actual need of an income – until then all members had to be financially secure enough not to require payment.

The situation these days has completely changed – why on earth is it deemed acceptable that MPs can have paid interests outside Parliament and those of the people who elect them?

Why should former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, while still the sitting MP for Leicester West, be taking money from Boots and private equity company Cinven to “advise” them?

Why should Tim Yeo be a paid director of Univent plc, ITI Energy, Eco City Vehicles plc, AFC Energy and Groupe Eurotunnel SA, as well as MP for South Suffolk?

Why should it be OK for Doug Henderson to be on the board of McDonalds as well as claiming to represent the best interests of his constituents?

The Register of Members’ Interests is one of the most depressing documents anyone with any belief in real democracy can read.

MPs should have one job – representing their constituents. If an increased salary and increased expenses are not enough for them, then they should leave politics and find something more lucrative to do.

Even those who are very politically aware would struggle to name more than 100 MPs. In other words less than one sixth of them are making any sort of impact.

For every John Bercow or Gywneth Dunwoody there are a dozen non-entities, lobby fodder for their parties who have contributed nothing to our political process.

People who have trouble getting recognised in their own front room. I think we deserve a leaner, more efficient House of Commons with better pay and conditions for the 50% of MPs who would remain under my excellent plan.

Thatcher wheeled out to vote against gays

You can always tell that the forces of conservatism are on full tilt then they wheel out their beloved icon and former Prime Minister to vote in the Lords.

Yesterday, in a doomed attempt to block perfectly sensible proposals to allow same-sex couples to be recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos, Baroness Thatcher was seen wandering through the lobbies accompained by arch-acolytes such as Lord St John of Fawning and the skinhead Tebbit.

The proposal means that a lesbian lady who gives birth and her civil partner will both be recognised as the parents of a child conceived through assisted reproduction.

Two men will also be able to apply for a parental order to become parents of a child conceived through a surrogacy arrangement.

This modest change in the law is like a red rag to the homophobic bulls of our public life.

I suspect the hand of shady organisation the Christian Institute in the mobilisation of La Thatcher (she’s 82 and by all accounts her once powerful intellect is tragically denuded.)

What was heartening about last night’s Lords vote on the Embryology Bill was the kicking the "need for a father" brigade got – their amendment was defeated by 60-odd votes, which in Lords terms is a disaster.

The family values campaigners, who of course are attempting to weaken the tens of thousands of non-Waltons families that already exist in our country, pulled out all the stops and fell flat on their face.

It certainly seems to have put their nose out of joint – only a few hours ago, in a debate on the proposed new offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, one of the more … errr … colourful members of the House had a big rant about gays having too much influence on the government. Read all about it here.

It must be a dark time to be a member of a sect such as Christian Institute – like a sort of a reverse Midas touch. Everything they touch turns to turd.

Still, at least Jeebus is on their side. Or something.

It's a shambles, Darling

Time was that economic competence was the mark of this Labour government.

But today, with shares hitting lows not seen since 9/11, record defecits in December and most of all the continuing balls-up that is Northern Rock, it seems that Brown is no longer the master he once was.

The shameful spectacle of 25 billion pounds being pumped into a dodgy bank has not been helped by the Chancellor and Treasury's seeming lack of an exit strategy.

His latest suggestion is to convert the money into bonds and sell them to investors.

It is pretty clear that they should have let the bank die, and tough on those who had left their savings with the bank, or nationalised the thing in the first place.

While it would have been hard on those people who had deposited money with Northern Rock, the fact is that putting your money in the bank is not 100% guaranteed.

Similarly, pumping tens of billions of pounds into the coffers of a private financial institution was madness and there is no clear route out for the government.

It seems that Alastair Darling's promotion to Chancellor was a poisoned chalice. Meanwhile the Tories and Lib Dems are crowing from the sidelines.

The increasinlgy impressive George Osborne pointed out in the Commons today that not since the nightmares of the 1970s has so much public money been funnelled into a British company, and never on this scale.

Even in the best-case scenario in which Northern Rock's debt is all paid back, albeit over at least five years, the Labour government's reputation for economic competence is ruined forever.

politicsjunkie returns!

After a year away from blogging, I have decided I can’t live without it.

While editing PinkNews.co.uk, Europe’s largest gay news service, continues to be an exciting way to pass the working day, I find I do not get enough time to comment – and as you know I do love to comment.

In honour of the re-commencement of my blog, I have reproduced some of the best of the interviews and comment pieces I have written for PinkNews.co.uk in the past twelve months.

2007 was a great year for me – the first time I got to interview Cabinet ministers, my first visit to 10 Downing St, my first (and so far only) experience of seeing Tony Blair speak in the flesh.

I was particularly lucky to be able to interview both candidates for Lib Dem leader, all six of the contenders for Deputy Leader of the Labour party and receive a nomination for the Stonewall Journalist of the Year award.

Some person from The Independent won it.

A personal highlight was the party conference season – my first as a political journalist.

I guess I was not prepared for how much fun they are, and how much alcohol is consumed.

I can’t wait for 2008.

Yet there is so much to think about before then.

A London mayoral election that is already too close to call.

A Presidential election in America that could bring real change or more of the same.

A critical year for the Prime Minister.

Can he turn around his image and his party, pick up some council seats in the May elections and push forward into 2009 ready to win an historic fourth Labour term?

And what of Nick Clegg? Always a favourite of mine from the day he gave me one of my first high-profile interviews, he is yet to make a significant dent in the public consciousness.

Will the new confident Tory party squeeze the Lib Dems firmly onto the sidelines? Or will Cameron also falter, his new sheen dulled by the daily rough and tumble of Parliamentary politics?

And when IS Michael Martin going to stand down as Speaker?

Who knows – one thing is for certain though – with a new occupant of the White House to be chosen, and in the most wide-open race in decades, 2008 is going to be a political year to remember.

December 07 - Interview with Nick Herbert, Shadow Justice Secretary

The 2005 intake of MPs contained the usual mix of the good, the bad and the barmy. There were dozens of new Conservative MPs, a brace of freshman Lib Dems and hardly any new Labour faces at all.

The new Tory boys and girls were instrumental in propelling David Cameron into power, and he has rewarded the best and the brightest with seats in his Shadow Cabinet.

Nicholas Le Quesne Herbert is one of two Nicks who first sat on the green benches two years ago to keep an eye on in the years ahead.

Great expectations follow them around the corridors of Westminster.

While Nick Clegg is the clear favourite to become leader of the Liberal Democrat party later this month, Nick Herbert is making a name for himself as one of the new stars of the Conservative frontbench.

As Shadow Justice Secretary, he speaks for his party on diverse topics such homophobic incitement, prisons, constitutional reform and the funding of political parties.

The first openly gay man to be elected as a Conservative MP, he is destined for a frontline role in any future Cameron administration.

When we met in his Commons office the government was under siege over dodgy donations, and the new Tories were getting their first taste of just how badly the next few years could go for Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Nick was, unsurprisingly, in a good mood as we talked gay rights, the future for party funding and how it feels to be a minority MP.

Let's start with the government's woes. What is your take on the donations scandal?

It appears that Labour has systematically attempted to undo or evade its own party funding laws. This will dismay the public.

What is doubly serious is not only that the law has been broken, as the Prime Minister said, but there has been a systematic attempt to evade the law by the party that was parading its high moral credentials in introducing this legislation, beating up all the other parties at the time for their approach to this matter, and yet has sought to evade its own legislation not once but twice.

Labour's chief fundraiser, Jon Mendelsohn, who was appointed by the Prime Minister in June, learned about Mr Abrahams' proxy donations last month, but was unaware that they were illegal. Is that credible?

It is completely incredible that those people who are officials involved in this fundraising effort do not understand the law.These are now matters for criminal investigation but in my view these are very serious indeed.

What do the Tories propose by way of reforming party funding?

We have called for a cap on all donations from whatever source, of £50,000, and unfortunately that is not possible. Labour is refusing to agree to that because they will not cap union donations.They should rethink that policy urgently.

It is clear that we need to build public confidence in the way in which parties are funded.The union bosses have control over these funds and we just think there should be one rule that applies to everyone.

But what about your own party. Are you entirely confident your own house is in order?

We are absolutely sure our own house is in order, that has been made clear. We know who all our major donors are.

We go through all the proper compliance procedures, but we have said let's have a cap on donations so that no party has to be reliant on major donations.

And what about public funding for political parties?

We are much more interested in reducing the cost of politics and that is what David Cameron has made clear.

Speaking of David Cameron, you must be very upset that his trip to Washington DC was overshadowed by this awful government scandal?

Well, all Shadow spokesmen over the last two or three weeks been making major speeches, I made a major speech on prisons, which are all receiving far less attention than they might otherwise have done.

I proposed to sell off our Victorian prisons. That was a fairly radical thing to suggest, but the government has found itself in such difficulties. That's politics.

Let's turn to incitement to homophobic hatred. At party conference in October you said that you'd wait to decide on whether to support it until you saw the amendment.

The government's now brought the amendment forward. Tell us what you feel about the government's proposals needs finessing or changing?

Well firstly just to make it clear, in committee the government's amendment went through without a vote, and the official opposition broadly supported the approach.

We think that hate crime has no place in a civilised society and inciting violent hatred against gay people plainly is totally unacceptable. The question is where criminal law should be drawn.

You and I would agree that when people say things which are abusive or insulting about gay people that that can be hurtful and wrong and in our eyes unacceptable but that's not to say that it should always be a matter for the criminal law.

I think that where there seems to be a consensus is that we must just make sure the law is drawn in the right place so that it's outlawing those acts which incite violence but is allowing free speech.

It's what Stonewall describes as "temperate comments" and that's what I think we are all trying to achieve, I don't think there's any disagreement about that between the major parties. We tabled our own amendment which had a very similar effect to the government and the minister said that she welcomed much of the amendment.

This matter will come back to the floor of the Commons I suspect, and I think that there will be Members of Parliament who are simply seeking reassurance that free speech is not going to be outlawed.

That people who have very strong religious conviction are going to be able to express disapproval of gay people. You know, I wish they wouldn't, of course. I think they're wrong but I think they must be allowed to hold those views and express them in a temperate way, provided, that is totally different, to someone seeking to incite hatred that is going to lead to violence against a community by spreading really vile literature and so on.

You seem to be saying that the lessons from the Race and Religious Hatred Bill have been learned.

I think the government has learned them and that's why they've modelled the provision more on the religious hatred side but we will just need to make clear, now it could be through guidance. It may be that the government's amendments doesn't require any further amendment.

We don't want to see the protection that the government is offering significantly weakened.

What we want to see, ensure is that free speech can be protected. It may be that that can be done in the form of guidance and so on. So I think it will need further debate, but I think also there is good will on all sides to try and get this measure onto the statute book.

Those two groups normally referred to as Christians and comedians will still be able to express their views, mock, insult or abuse?

Yes, as you know insulting or abusive words are out of the protection and that I think is a major difference between the racial and religious hatred legislation.

It should give the protection which the church seeks and comedians and so on seek. Now that means that they are going to be able to say things that makes us very uncomfortable, but we must engage with them and recognise that actually what we are trying to protect here is a decent civilised society and one of the qualities of a decent civilised society is that it protects free speech, except where that free speech really has to be criminalised.

It seems to me there has been an almost a wilful misunderstanding of legislation as it affects gay people. There seems to be a similar kind of misunderstanding of IVF provisions. Where do you think that misunderstanding about 'gay' legislation comes from and does it amuse or frustrate you when you read reports that are so wildly inaccurate?

It doesn't often amuse me. Sometimes its because proposals are made without the detail yet being available and I think that was the case in relation to the government's proposal on incitement to homophobic hatred.

I think people thought that it was going to be a wide-ranging offence that would prevent them from saying things that were perhaps comment on the basis of their Christian belief or some kind of joke.

As people see how the legislation is drafted they will become rather more reassured.

How do you feel about being a minority MP?

Am I a minority MP?

Well you are, aren't you? You're a gay MP and that makes you a minority MP in the same way that if you were black you would be a minority MP, or a Muslim, you'd be a minority MP. So clearly you don't think of yourself as a minority MP?

No I don't. I think of myself as an MP as a constituency Member of Parliament doing my best to represent my constituents in West Sussex.

I don't like labels that put people into a box and I think I've always taken the view that I wanted to be selected on my merits. I wanted to be elected on my merits and I think I was.

I want to be able to say things without people putting a label on and I think that's what a lot of gay people want. They just want to be treated as equal people in a society in which we live. They don't necessarily want to say, I'm different. Please treat me as different.

Rather the reverse, they want to say, I'm the same. Please treat me as the same. But having said that, the one thing that I have come to realise since I was elected as an out gay MP is that it's very important to other gay people.

Much more important than I realised. And I've come to realise that through the emails and letters that I get from individuals, including young people, including people going through school, including people who are actually trying coming to terms with coming out at a much older age.

Not just people who are Conservatives but often people who are, not surprisingly, in my own political party, they write and they say thank you for being out and open, because you've given me great hope that I might one day be able to be a Conservative councillor or a Conservative MP, or just be whatever I want to be in my community, without people thinking that there's anything wrong with that.

I've really come to understand that.I think initially I was trying to say, "yea look right I'm gay, next question," but actually it does matter, it matters to other people because we still live in a society where people feel inhibited about being open about their sexuality.

I've realised Alan Duncan (the other out gay Shadow Cabinet member) and I do have an important role in the Conservative party in making people say "look the Conservative party has changed, it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, what matters is that you're Conservative."

You've had a pretty rapid rise to power.

Well I haven't got power yet.

Well, you know, influence. You're in the Shadow Cabinet and you've only been in Parliament for two years and a couple of months. What do you ascribe that to?

(Laughs) You'll have to ask others. I think I've been incredibly fortunate, you know I was selected at the last moment for a constituency in a fantastic part of the world.

I live in Arundel which is just a great town for anyone who's visited it. I feel incredibly privileged to be an MP, but I feel really privileged to be representing Arundel and the South Downs, it's a great part of the world and I'm very lucky and I also feel lucky because I've kind of come in to this just at the time when the political sands are shifting.

We have a new leader who has transformed the position of the Conservative party.

You mentioned your constituency, I was having a look at your schedule which you've very kindly put on your website. It seems that you're going to two Christmas parties in the next few days. How many Christmas parties does a conscientious constituency MP have to go to?

I don't know. But I think I'm doing about 20. By the time I get to Christmas, I'm never going to want to look roast turkey in the face again that happened last year.

The truth is if you're like me and really enjoy Christmas, I actually think that it's good fun, I have the opportunity to do it 20 times over.

They've started already, they started in November. I have a very busy life in the constituency, going to community events, going to my local party events.

There's a very strong sense of community in the villages I represent and it's a very big constituency so there are lots of villages in it so there are always things going on.

Apart from the great, huge enjoyment of being an MP is that you do four days a week up in Westminster, that's kind of intense and everything, but then you are down in the constituency doing the community work and it's actually that side of things that I really look forward to.

Talking of the constituency, well I get asked a lot if you've got a boyfriend, but I understand you do have a partner called Jason?

Yeah.

You've broken a lot of hearts there Nick.

That's very kind of you!

Does he have to do the role of the constituency wife?

Well I think a lot of the younger MPs of whichever party, whether they're gay or straight, it's very likely that their partners will be working, will have their own careers.Jason certainly is, he's a solicitor so he has his own career.

He often jokes about making vol-au-vents and so on, but the truth is since he can't cook to save his life, so it's plainly not true.

Jason was welcomed by the local party from the minute that I was selected and he supports an enormous number of the local activities, comes along to them and he's just treated as anybody else is treated.I think it's one of the marks actually of the way in which the Conservative party really has changed.

We haven't had an iota of criticism or rejection, rather than the reverse. He'll be coming along to one of the lunches that I'm going to tomorrow and they've specifically asked him to.

Do you think that model of the constituency wife is a little bit outdated?

What I think is outdated is the idea that you might have a partner and you are the principal person and your partner is the secondary person.

That's completely an outdated model. I think that being an MP is a job where I would find it very difficult to do without the kind of support that I get from him and I think a lot of MPs would say that about their wives, their husbands and their partners.

How long have you two been together?

Eight years.

Were you out at university, after university?

No, not at all. I mean I think that like a lot of people I was kind of crap about this, you know, really, really crap about this. And the thing is of course, once you're out, it's so easy to forget just what a huge deal this is. And at whatever age you are.

When I got around very late in the day to telling my friends, family and so on, and the funny thing was that a lot of my friends just said "Yes, right, well we kind of guessed that, you know, it's taken you a very long time to come right to telling us."

For a lot of young people and for old people it is still the most difficult thing to do and people need a lot of support and so on. Be reassured that it may seem the most difficult thing, but coming out will make you feel honest, powerful and liberated.

Do you feel now that the Tory party is there in terms of being fully accepting of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

I think the party, I think we really are getting there.

We hear different things from the Tories in the House of Lords every time they talk about gay rights.

I think it is self-evidently that the party has moved. You have two out gay MPs both of whom happen to be in the Shadow Cabinet. You got the stances that, the frontbench led by David Cameron. we took on the sexual orientation regulations, the stance that we have taken in relation to this incitement to gay hatred provisions.

Still the bulk of the party, the majority of the party it would appear, voted against.

Actually most people didn't vote that day, because the vote was not expected and people weren't there, as I explained at the time.

Surely, the important thing is the signal that the frontbench was sending. I see among my own intake, which is about 50 conservative MPs who were elected last time, a change of attitude.

And I think it's fair to say that some of the recent legislation has raised very important issues about freedom of religious conscience. Both the Sexual Orientation Regulations in respect of gay adoption and the current regulations in relation to current bill, incitement in relation to free speech, and you shouldn't dismiss that.

And there are plenty of people, including gay people, including people who are otherwise very sympathetic to the gay rights agenda, who have concerns about this legislation, that it should not go too far, that it should be balanced, should protect free speech, should protect freedom of religious expression.

I didn't think myself that the sexual orientation regulations as it applied to gay adoptions was an easy issue to decide, because it appeared to involve competing rights.

I think that it's quite clear that we are a party that is changing its attitudes towards gay people and I am very proud of the fact that we are doing so and have a leader who is determined that is one of the things we should do.

Read an interview with Lib Dem Justice spokesman David Heath here.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6306.html

November 07 - Interview with Justice minister Maria Eagle

The government's proposal to create a new offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation has not been met with approval by some leading gay commentators.

Well-respected opinion-formers such as Times columnist Matthew Parris and Independent journalist Johann Hari have questioned the need for new laws. Parris said that the gay community does not need protection from ridicule.

Rowan Atkinson, the star of the inexplicably popular Mr Bean films, has publicly fretted about the implications of such a law on the freedom of comedians to mock gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

The minister piloting the relevant amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Maria Eagle.

The 46-year-old MP for Liverpool Garston has held various junior ministerial posts since 1998, and when we met in her spacious Whitehall office last week she was keen to highlight the work done on gay equality in the past ten years.

As the sister of the only out lesbian MP, Maria Eagle has a particular understanding of the experience of the gay community. The proposed incitement to homophobic hatred law has been discussed for some time.

The Liberal Democrats made its introduction a manifesto commitment in the 2005 elections.

The passage of the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act in 2005 and 2006 led gay rights campaigners to increase their campaign to have their community granted an equal level of protection.

I put the three main arguments put forward in opposition to the government's homophobic hatred provisions to the minister.

The first is that as incitement is already an offence, the new law is unnecessary.

"There is existing legislation about violence against individuals, provisions within the current law that will enable the Criminal Justice System to take a dimmer view of those who get engaged in violence against an individual because of their sexuality," she replies.

"If you go and attack someone because they are gay then that is an aggravating feature of the violence offence. That's true.

"But I think that the evidence that Stonewall gave to the public bill committee got to the point on this.

"Because there is no incitement provision at the minute, there is a gap.

"If you go around inciting hatred against a group of people or an undefined group of people on the grounds of their sexuality, that isn't against the law. We think it should be."

Christian activist groups such as the Evangelical Alliance claim the new law will leave them "living in fear of prosecution" for expressing their Bible-inspired beliefs about homosexuality.

Muslim groups have also criticised the law for the same reason. Ms Eagle confirms that groups have made representations to her on the issue. She insists that the new law will not have any such effect.

"It has not been our intention to outlaw people expressing their views, whether they be Christians or comedians, about the way other people live their lives.

"You can have protection against incitement to hatred and at the same time protect people's right to express their free views. It's a very important factor of our history and heritage, freedom of speech, and I hope we can do it right."

Concerns about freedom of speech led to a rare Commons defeat for the government in January 2006 over the Racial and Religious Hatred legislation.

Lib Dem peer Lord Lester introduced a clause in the House of Lords which had the effect of seriously restricting the way in which the incitement law could be used.

The Blair government lost a vote on that amendment in the Commons.

Provisions referring to "abusive and insulting" language and behaviour were removed from the law, and prosecutors now have to prove intent to stir up religious hatred, rather than just the possibility of doing so.

Ms Eagle says the homophobic incitement proposal differs from both the race protections in the Public Order Act and the recent religious protections.

The homophobic amendments target threatening behaviour or words that are intended to stir up or incite hatred but not those that are judged as "likely to."

"We are aiming at threatening words and behaviour that are intended to incite. It is very clear from that what we do not want.

"We are taking out abusive and insulting, but we are applying the offences to threatening words or behaviour.

"Partly because that way of expressing ourselves in (the Racial and Religious) legislation was never what we wanted as a government. We did not support it. It only ended up in there because we got defeated.

"I think that in respect of sexuality in particular it would be most inappropriate to have a caveat saying you are allowed to go and abuse and insult gay people."

To bring some clarity to all of this, I presented two high-profile examples to the minister.Stephen Green, the Christian activist, likes to hand out leaflets at Pride events carrying quotations from the Bible stating that homosexuality is wrong.

He's been arrested under public order offences before. The BNP has in the past handed out leaflets in a council estate saying "All gay people are paedophiles."

Would both or either of those be covered by the proposed incitement law?

"I think it depends not only on the intention, which is a key part of the offence, and that will be a matter for the judgment of the individual investigating officer," Ms Eagle explains.

"Police officers make those judgments all the time and CPS make those judgments.

"Obviously the context is going to be important. If you are a preacher and on Sunday morning you tell your sermon of your beliefs and the beliefs of your denomination about gay people then that's different to going and standing outside a gay club and using threatening words and behaviour.

"The intent is the key. That is very clearly unacceptable and that's where we are pitching the offence."

The third objection to the law focuses on its practical purpose. When he announced the proposed amendments, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said of the proposed incitement legislation:

"It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are all now appalled by hatred and invective directed against gay people, and it is now time for the law to recognise the feeling of the public. "

In other words, it is symbolic, a sign to the gay community that their concerns are listened to by the government, but just another new offence to add to the thousands already created by this Labour administration.

"The law lays down a line beyond which it's not possible to go without being on the wrong side of the law and you are subject to being prosecuted," the minister asserts.

"The law as a side effect can send signals, yes, and I think that can be important in areas like this about equality.

"But I am trained as a lawyer and I am not myself inclined to see the law as something that is just sending signals.

"It's putting down a line in the sand, on this side of the line what you do is lawful; on the other side it's unlawful. That's what the law does.

"If it sends signals as a result then that's also important. It's not a cosmetic exercise. I don't think it's right to change the law as a cosmetic exercise."

The leading contender for the Lib Dem leadership supports the proposed new law, while the Tory Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert has stressed "the right balance between freedom of speech, ensuring that the offence must be intentional, and covering threatening language only."

The minister says she expects amendments to be brought forward, and concedes that the Lords are unpredictable, but expects "widespread support" from MPs for the incitement law.

There are proposals to include trans people and the disabled in the proposal, but the government requires an evidence base to make the case for their inclusion.

"One of the things you need to do if you are impinging upon free speech is be able to show for human rights reasons that there is a good reason for that to balance against the free speech rights," Ms Eagle explains.

"I've had some representations as you might imagine as a result of this. Anyone who wants to talk to us about this please do. We do, in order to impinge on free speech in this way, need to show that there is a reason."

The new Justice department, of which Ms Eagle is one of six ministers, takes responsibility for the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

She concedes that parts of the system have been slower than others to tackle homophobia and homophobic attacks, but claims that the specific needs of gay, lesbian and bisexual people are being taken seriously.

"Since the 2003 legislation that made an aggravating factor of homophobic motivation in attacks, the criminal justice agencies, be they police, the judges or the CPS have to take that on board.

"It's partly training, partly cultural change in society. I think we have seen a lot of that, but which is the chicken and which is the egg I'm not quite sure.

"One of the reasons why we have seen such cultural change is a general increased level from younger age groups of tolerance, but in order to promote that you have to have a way of tackling intolerance, and this is part of that."

Ms Eagle knows more than most about intolerance.

She has been a Labour member since her teenage years, and her sister Angela made the headlines and gained the respect of many by coming out as the only gay woman in Parliament soon after the 1997 election.

The sisters first attended party conference in 1980 – "you never had to queue in the ladies, put it that way, as there weren't very many women there," she recalls with a smile - and they are the only pair of female twins ever to be elected to the Commons.

The minister embraces the change in British attitudes since the days of Old Labour, not least the fact that the Tories are now keen to stress their gay-friendly credentials.

"You wouldn't have thought that ten years ago, or five years ago, and I think that's good. Tolerance, diversity and equality have always been at the heart of the Labour party and its politics.

"Far more gay and lesbian people are happy to come out now, they are able to do it without having to live their lives hiding away, and that's got to be good for the health of individuals and society generally."

Many MPs and others in politics are yet to step out of the closet.

When I mention that her sister is the only lesbian MP the minister corrects me by saying she is the only one "out," indicating there are others who have thus far not been so brave.

Given the attention Angela Eagle's announcement received, it is understandable why other women have not followed.

"It was a tough thing for her to do," recalls Maria.

"I supported her very much. The previous female MP who had done that, or rather had that done to her, was Maureen Colquhoun, who had a terrible time.

"She was deselected by her own party, the national party had to say hang on, you can't do that to her, reinstated her, and she lost.

"So obviously we were worried about it, but to be honest she prepared it so very, very well, she picked the time perfectly and it came off as well as you could have expected.

"That isn't to say that my father wasn't door stepped, that I wasn't door stepped, our neighbours weren't door stepped, our old head teacher from when we were five wasn't door stepped because, they all were.

"I saw it from being a supportive sister with Angela, how much guts and preparation and everything it takes. It's the same for everybody who decides to come out in their lives. Alright it's not always going to be on the front of all the newspapers but for every person who does that it feels like to them.

"There are gay and lesbian people at every level of every organisation, and I think whether or not they are out is a very personal choice.

"Some people do and do so at an early stage, but I have never talked to a gay or lesbian friend who has not found it to be one of the hardest things they have ever done, and I don't think its right to force people to declare themselves. It's the same with disability.

"When I was a minister for disabled people we had all these arguments and discussions. I just don't think that when you have discrimination, which we still do, that it's right to force people to declare a disability, or their sexuality.

"I am the only person who got forced to declare my sexuality that I know of because of course when Angela came out everybody had to report that I was heterosexual.

"It's quite amusing , when you look at a lot of the information sheets you get about MPs, you get a lot of "Maria Eagle, the heterosexual member for Liverpool Garston."

"Why don't you say everyone else is heterosexual as well, but its just one of the consequences of being a twin."

Despite all that information identifying Maria Eagle as the straight one, she reveals that even the Speaker has mixed them up.

"People just think of us as "the Eagles." Sometimes I wish I had a pound for every time I get mixed up with my sister, because I'd be very rich."

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-6149.html

November 07: Nick Clegg interview

This article was first published on 15th November 2007. Nick Clegg beat Chris Huhne to become the Lib Dem leader on 18th December 2007 by just 511 votes.

Since winning Sheffield Hallam in the 2005 general election, Nick Clegg has made a major impression on Liberal Democrats in Parliament and across the country.

Tipped as a future leader before he even entered Westminster, in the wake of Sir Menzies Campbell's resignation he finds himself standing sooner than was imagined.

Age did it for Ming, and 40-year-old Clegg is the frontrunner in the contest to replace him. Like his opponent in the leadership race, Chris Huhne, he attended the private Westminster School.

After Cambridge, and post-graduate degrees at the University of Minnesota and the College of Europe in Brussels, he joined the European Commission in 1994.

A high-flyer, he became a senior adviser to Sir Leon Brittan, the Thatcher-appointed Vice President of the Commission, and then MEP for the East Midlands from 1999 to 2004.

As his party's home affairs spokesman he has become a prominent critic of the government on civil liberties and a vocal opponent of ID cards and increased pre-charge detention of terror suspects.

In an exclusive interview Nick Clegg explains why he is the heir to Ming, how to tackle homophobia in eastern Europe, and where the Lib Dems could take seats from Labour at the next election.

How is the campaign going?

Good. The whole contest gives us a really good opportunity to do what, frankly, we haven't been doing enough of over the last couple of years, which is speaking to people beyond politics and starting to really showcase what the Lib Dems are about. I am all about expanding the appeal of the party.

Why are there so few out gay MPs?

There are too few women, too few gay men and women, too few black and minority ethnic MPs, all roughly for the same reason. This whole place, Westminster, looks like a 19 th century boarding school, acts like a 19th century boarding school, so frankly it speaks a language utterly alien to anybody who does not fit that conventional mould.

In 2005 the Lib Dems had a manifesto commitment to make incitement to homophobic hatred a crime on a par with religious hatred. What is your view?

I am absolutely in favour of that. I pushed it very strongly has home affairs spokesperson; I passionately believe that there is a real problem. I have heard some people claim that it is not an issue – it is.

There is a real problem with homophobic violence. That is unacceptable and what we did with religious hatred bill shows that we can strike the right balance between making sure that hateful crime does not take place but at the same time protect people's right to free speech.

Several gay commentators, such as Times columnist Matthew Parris, object to the law.

I have become persuaded by the evidence put forward by Stonewall that this is a real issue. I accept there is a much more theoretical argument about where the law affords protection to particular groups.

I still think the evidence from Stonewall is compelling. Matthew is an old friend. I understand where he is coming from, I just disagree with him on this particular issue and under my leadership I will make absolutely sure that we are at the forefront of getting the balance right with this legislation.

Homophobia in some of the new EU states is a huge problem. Gay rights marches are being banned in Poland and in Lithuania. As a former MEP, what do you think we should do about it?

Bluntly, I do not think we were tough enough on the Copenhagen criteria in letting them in without challenging this. And it is not just homophobia.

If you look at the persecution of the Roma in parts of central and eastern Europe, it is grotesque.

We need to use every single avenue possible – political, in press terms as well to throw a spotlight onto behaviour that is simply incompatible with the criteria these countries signed up to when they joined the European Union. The EU is not an economic club, it is a club of values, and I passionately believe that, of liberal values.

Are you confident they will come round to our way of thinking?

If you look at the grand scheme of things, there is progress. Sometimes it goes backwards, but on the whole, judicial independence and a spreading of liberal values is going in the right direction, but is not moving as fast as I would like.

If you become leader will you increase online campaigning?

Oh yes, hugely. For the obvious reasons. I am part of that generation that increasingly does not rely on ink and paper for my information. I take a train in every morning into Westminster, when I am London during the week, and I get my news from a little hand-held PDA. That is now the way people increasing get their information.

What is it you can bring to the party as leader?

It is a number of things. If you look at the work I have done in the home affairs capacity for the party, I think most people recognise that I am one of the leading campaigners in this country on some very important issues: prison reform, talking in a smart but compassionate way about immigration, being a progressive voice on civil liberties.

I have always tried to do it in a way that is straight, plain speaking and has real substance to it.

But you do not have the gravitas that Ming was praised for.

I am someone who has taught at university on policy, I used to work as an international trade negotiator, I used to manage major aid projects in some of the poorest countries in Asia. I think I have got the experience and the background …

The perception of some people is: he has only been in Parliament for two years, he is the new boy, young, charismatic, good looking, but we do not know what he stands for ...

I will tell you a story to illustrate it. About seven years ago when I first thought that I might want to make the transition from the European Parliament to Westminster, I came to this building to meet some senior Lib Dem MPs.

I said that no one had made the leap from the European Parliament to Westminster before, do you think I can do it.

And all of them said to me that your problem is that you are too interested in policy substance, you keep producing all these books, I have written books on world trade, education police, reform of the EU.

They said, you are just a bit too interested in substance and not interested enough in the presentational side of politics.

So to be told a few months later that maybe the reverse is the case shows how fickle, frankly, people's judgements are. I am totally self-confident that I marry an ability to be able to speak to people like a human being and crucially communicate with people beyond the Westminster bubble, but do so with a real sense of credibility and substance.

It is one of the most dangerous jobs in British politics, being leader of the Lib Dems. You are confident that there are not any skeletons in the Clegg closet that are going to jump out.

I doubt my teenage years merit a great deal of scrutiny by those who are easily shocked! I am not for one moment pretending I am an unblemished human being but I wouldn't be stupid enough – not for my own sake, by the way, but for the sake of the party – to put myself forward if I did not feel that I can do so with a clear conscience.

Being leader does put a big strain on your family – is that something you have discussed with your wife?

Oh yeah. I would say this, wouldn't I, but Miriam is an extraordinary woman. She has her own full time career. We have two small children; we both work more than full time and we share childcare very easily. I am as much a primary parent to my children as she is.

The way you do that is being very organised and sheltering the kids from politics. I do not think you will ever see me use my kids for political advantage and above all saying no sometimes.

It is not their fault their dad has gone into politics.

Are you the nasty party now?

No, I don't think we are. We have had a really rocky time of it obviously and there have been some ructions, some self-inflicted, some not.

Frankly my only concern now is to draw a line under what has been a slightly introverted time in the parliamentary party and start talking outwards again.

That is why I am so pleased that the vast majority of the colleagues in the parliamentary party, who know Chris and myself the best, have declared in favour of me.

Not for some fatuous tally or head count, but because I think any leader of this party is going to have to be able to unite people very rapidly in order to make sure that there is no internal tensions so we can reach out to new voters.

It is going to have to be very rapid because of what is known as the Tory squeeze, that a third party with a resurgent Conservative party …

Can I just qualify that? Cameron's appeal is much more regionally constrained than large parts of the London-based media appreciate.

In the same way that you are a middle-class party with middle-class concerns?

Well you say that, but you watch. We are now a party which is representing north and south, urban and rural. The Conservatives have been beaten back to their English rural heartlands.

One of the reasons I am keen to lead the party is because I am an MP from the North, I cut my teeth in cities like Derby, Leicester, and Nottingham. I am the only non-Labour MP in Sheffield and south Yorkshire.

You represent one of the richest seats in the UK outside of the south east.

Well come and visit it. If you think Sheffield Hallam is paved in gold you have another thing coming. There are some real pockets of deprivation.

I am a very active MP for the whole of Sheffield. I campaign with Lib Dems across the city. You cannot but be shocked by the social divisions where in the poorest ward in Sheffield you will die, on average, 14 years earlier than someone in the wealthy wards just a few miles down the road.

The Conservatives are nowhere there. They are a meaningless political force in any urban area north of Watford. That gives us an enormous bridgehead.

I think the big gains that we will make against either party in the coming years will be in large measure against Labour in their urban heartlands. Look at our advances in Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool.

And you don't think the Tory emphasis on social justice under former leader Iain Duncan Smith will work in those areas?

I think most people are pretty smart, and are not just going to be bought off with some new rhetoric and photographic blandishments from Cameron. They want to see where the beef is.

I still don't know where the substance is on his environmentalism, his social compassion.

How can you believe the Conservatives on social justice, when they want to distort the tax system in favour of marriage? Where is the progressive nature of a party that somehow thinks you can bribe people through the tax system to walk up the aisle?

Where is the progressive nature of a party that thinks you can turn immigration on and off like a tap? In a party that is extraordinarily introverted and inward looking when it comes to international relations?

And what about the charge that you are a middle-class party?

It needs to change. Which is why Simon Hughes has declared himself in favour of my candidacy and why I was with him in London South Bank University last week meeting a number of students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

The Liberal Democrats cannot pretend to represent contemporary Britain until contemporary Britain is represented in us.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-6067.html

November 07: Chris Huhne interview

This article was first published on 10th November 2007. Nick Clegg beat Chris Huhne to become the Lib Dem leader on 18th December 2007 by just 511 votes and appointed his rival as the party's Home Affairs spokesman.

Much has been made in these first few weeks of the race to become leader of the Liberal Democrats about the similarities between the candidates.

Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are both Westminster School-educated former MEPs with near-identical views nearly all the key issues.

Both became MPs as part of the Lib Dems strong showing in the 2005 elections. Both are English and will appeal to voters in key south and south east seats where the resurgent Tories are a major threat.

Indeed, Chris Huhne, currently his party's spokesman on environment issues, has a majority of just 568 in his Hampshire seat.

At 53, he is the more senior candidate. He ran against Sir Menzies Campbell in the last leadership election in early 2006, coming second, and is a former journalist and successful businessman.

Yet for all that his 40-year-old opponent is the favourite to win when the results are announced just before Christmas.

In an exclusive interview Chris Huhne explains why he should succeed Ming, why Sir Ian Blair must resign as Met police chief and why he is not convinced of the need for a new crime of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

How's the campaign going?

Not bad. I mean we're picking up. I think we're getting there slowly. I always thought we'd have a nice long campaign.

And you've been through it before of course.

And I've been through it before so I know about pacing ourselves which is quite important.

How soon after Ming resigned were you up and running the campaign?

Well it took a bit of time because really weren't expecting it at all actually and so...

Because your rival had a website up very quickly.

Well I'm told that. I don't know whether Nick had managed through foresight or whatever be preparing anything but certainly we weren't expecting it.

I was very determined that there would be no question of a sort of Michael Portillo phone line moment, so we didn't do anything before the resignation.

Many people are disengaged in politics because they think the main parties are quite timid in the way that they react to things like the environmental challenges. Do you think the place for your party to be is the radical party?

Well it is. I think the absolutely key role for the Liberal Democrats is to make sure we are not just radical in the sense of putting forward radical proposals on climate change for example, although we are, but actually we're the only party that's in favour of changing the whole system.

That's a really fundamental message because the pool of votes which we should be able to attract in are those 40% of people who aren't voting at all.

If we can somehow energise and give back a sense of trust and faith in the political process to those people, we can enormously increase the number of people who vote Liberal Democrat.

Half the population describes themselves as liberal and so we've got potentially a great pool to draw from but we're not getting our message across effectively.

Are you talking about changing the electoral system through proportional representation and localism?

Well I mean the whole constitution. Localism and proportional representation are the two key things. You've got to get power back to the people for them to understand that actually they can influence their own lives and the communities they live in.

And so localism is absolutely essential but obviously you also need fair votes, every vote has to count wherever you come from.

This is an area where the Tories have quite effectively come onto your ground, talking about localism returning, returning power down to as local a level as possible.

With proportional representation, don't you think that a coalition with either of the other main parties is the only way that you're going to achieve it?

You can get proportional representation either through winning an overall majority itself and then giving it away by introducing proportional representation or you can do it through cooperation with other parties.

I don't know which one of those will come but we have to be prepared for either and be very ambitious about the party.

Ming very clearly said it would be a precondition for him before he would consider any kind of coalition. Would that be your policy?

Well I wouldn't use the word precondition, I see it as slightly differently. I would say that actually any party leader who seriously wants to talk about partnership politics has to think through the political consequences of that and the system that we work in.

You can't have partnership politics if you have an electoral system that means very small shifts of votes can suddenly lead to casino-like effect on different parties.

You can't have partnership politics either if the Prime Minister of the partnership government is able to call an election at whatever time, potentially therefore putting a coalition partner at serious danger.

Inevitably if you begin to think of what is necessary for partnership politics you begin to think through the consequences of changing the system.

The system we have at the moment, first past the post, is designed to victimise partnership politics, it is designed to extrude it from the political process and have nothing to do with it. So we've got to change that.

But you won't use the word precondition?

I won't use precondition simply because it's not a bargaining chip. It's actually whether you're on the right wavelength. I mean it's even more fundamental than a precondition.

It's just basically, if you really want to have a partnership in normal times as opposed to a national emergency like war, then do you understand what the consequences are for the system?

In your 2005 manifesto the Lib Dems said they will make homophobic incitement an offence on the same basis as inciting racial hatred. Is that your position?

No, I'm very supportive on that and I very much like the work that Steven Williams has been doing on homophobic bullying in schools, and appointing a bullying mentor, I think that makes a lot of sense.

But on the specific issue of incitement - the Tories aren't sure what they're going to do about it. Jack Straw's very keen on it. I was wondering as a candidate for leader, what's your view is on this specific provision?

Well I think that incitement for any violence is frankly it's already illegal. I'm not sure that taking in a further offence adds an awful lot.

But if it's necessary to do that then I'm up for it because I think frankly, you know incitement to violence, incitement to hatred and therefore potentially to violence is extremely dangerous.

I think it's quite similar to racial hatred in the sense that people cannot choose their sexuality and therefore it is innate. I think where you draw the line is on those issues where you can't, where you don't want to chill free speech on issues.

Where people can makes decisions legitimately about what they're saying and doing. I wouldn't want to go so far as to act as an obstacle in the law to freedom of speech but I would want to protect people who are targeted because of race or sexual orientation, anything which is an innate part of their character.

So would you say you're open to the argument?

Yes.

Jack Straw and the Labour government whenever they talk about this piece of legislation, constantly talk about it sending a message and it being a gesture. I was wondering what you felt about that given that the Lib Dems have always been critical of how many new laws we have.

In general I'm not in favour of using the legislative process to send messages. I mean I think there is a role for the government of making it clear, I don't know if you have to pass a law to do so.

But there is a role for government clearly in making it clear what is acceptable and civilised behaviour and what isn't.

I look with consternation at the fact that we have 3400 new criminal offences since 1997 and you know many of them are frankly completely redundant because they merely repeat things which were already illegal.

I just don't see the point of them other than as a press release.

It seems an awful odd way of going about attracting press attention to limber up the Treasury solicitor into coming up with yet another draft bill on something or other.

Are you the nasty party now?

No, of course not. Nobody in their right mind would spend a lifetime in Liberal Democrat politics unless they cared passionately about the values that we put forward about fairness, about the green future for our society, about decentralisation, about civil liberties.

Having been active in our politics since the early 1980s, having been through periods when our poll ratings were so low that it was within the margin of error and one pollster actually just had an asterisk because they couldn't find any Liberal Democrat supporters at all, it's astonishing to suggest that we are the nasty party because we are in any way motivated other than by belief in our values.

You mention the 1980s there and that leads me onto your reputation, your City days when you were a petrolhead. How much of that is true?

Well I wasn't a petrolhead. I mean I had a...

Tell us what cars you had.

I actually...

It's nothing to be ashamed of Chris, everyone was doing it in the 1980s.

The truth is that I started getting interested in global warming as an issue in the late 80s and I wrote columns in The Guardian about it and then in The Independent.

I also wrote a book called Real World Economics in 1990 which talks about global warming as being one of the greatest threats that we face.

But in terms of personal behaviour you still have to make ridiculous compromises. I mean I still fly around and buy my offset because we're in an economy which is in a process of transition.

All that stuff about cars is frankly nonsense, because I had a company car when I went to The Independent, which was a standard issue BMW.

I didn't have any choice about it, I actually a nice Alfa Romeo is what I really wanted, but they said I had to have a BMW because of the resale value.

It's something that the press obviously enjoy talking about. It leads me onto something else. You remember the 1980s and you were a professional by that decade already. Nick Clegg and David Cameron were still at school.

Age was an issue in Ming‘s resignation. Are you not worried that you might be a bit too old? You know, you're as old as Gordon Brown, you're a good 15 years older than...

13 years older than Nick. I am 13 years older than Nick. That's obviously up to people to decide in the leadership contest.

I am very lucky in that I look younger than I am. I am very energetic, I'm very fit, I usually leave anybody with me panting after running up the stairs so I don't think I have any problems with energy levels and I wouldn't undertake this job if I didn't think that I was able to lead the party very vigorously.

I also think that the background of having been in business and having built up a business and employed people and created wealth and having 19 years in journalism is, actually has some advantages.

A lot of people want, crave these days authenticity in politics and one thing which is tremendously suspicious for many voters is the fact that people come into politics at a very young age without any experience of the real world.

They're not necessarily on the same wavelength as most voters and they don't necessarily understand the same sort of concerns, the insecurities that people have to face in the normal working environment.

I do, I've been there, I've done that, I've bought the T-shirt and I think that that's actually, particularly against both David Cameron and Gordon Brown, quite an important point. David Cameron's only spent four years outside the Westminster bubble in his life, when he was working as a PR advisor for Michael Green at Carlton.

And Gordon Brown similarly, similar period when he was a researcher on Scottish telly. So, I think that's actually quite a strength.

Well as you've said you have experience running an organisation, you've had experience running a business. With the Met police what's your view on their chief executive? Do you think Sir Ian Blair should resign?

It seems to me that it's pretty inevitable, he was clearly where the buck stopped, that was the decision and I think he has to go and it does worry me actually that in a lot of government departments there is a sort of culture of impunity where people do not take responsibility for their own mistakes.

And you'd expect that same high standard across the board from all your Liberal Democrat ministers and ministers in other administrations such as Scotland?

Yes, I think you do. If somebody's responsible for a really crass error, the signal you send out if you leave them in post is that it doesn't matter making crass errors and so you're actually inviting people in future to make the same sort of mistake as there's no problem from their point of view if they do.

You're a former MEP. One of the things that we report on regularly are countries who have joined the EU but don't seemed to have fully understood their social responsibilities towards gay people.What can we do about that?

The role of the EU in instilling liberal values into central and eastern European transition countries has been absolutely crucial.

I can remember people saying we only need the EU for peacekeeping, mainly for the environment, global warming.

I can remember when I was doing country risk work the Prime Minister of Slovakia set out in a very brutally nationalist way to persecute the Hungarian-speaking minority in Slovakia - 440,000 people.

He even went so far as to change the local government boundaries, to put them in minorities, to remove the right to educate their children in Hungarian and so forth.

And frankly if he had gone on, it would be almost inconceivable that the Hungarian state next door to Slovakia would not have had to intervene because of the political pressures on them.

You could easily have had an appalling mess like Bosnia and Serbia and Croatia. So, the EU response was you go ahead and do that and you'll no longer be entitled to join the EU, this is not acceptable behaviour, it was very firm and it stopped it.

We need through that gradual process of trying to send very clear signals, grading them obviously depending on what is acceptable behaviour in a civilised liberal democratic state and what isn't.

One of the most moving things of my entire career was going and visiting all of the central and eastern European countries when they first came to the capital markets in the 1990s and giving them ratings.

I realised just how much they wanted to be a part of the European democratic family and all that meant. And you know, particularly somewhere like Lithuanian or Latvia or Estonia, which had been gobbled up by the Soviet Union after their very brief moment of independence and suddenly actually becoming a country which is able to have their parliament and traditions and so forth, it's actually very moving.

And I think it doesn't take very much to move them on. I mean in the case of Poland I think it's also a thing you have to remember which makes it a rather special case.

Poland as a state didn't exist from the partition at the end of the 18th century between Russia and the Hapsburgs and the Prussians right the way through until after the First World War.

The institution that became the vehicle for Poland's cultural identity was the church.It was terribly important in preserving the cultural identity but a certain amount of baggage went with it.

And the baggage is taking a little bit of time to shed. But some of the more staid and conventional attitudes, traditional attitudes towards gays, follow ineluctably from some of that history. It will work its way out. And we don't need to speed it up.

Are you going to change the name of the party?

No, well I have no intention of changing it. I'm a social liberal and that means, I came through the SDP but in fact my history in terms of my family, my grandfather couldn't be more liberal.

He was named William Ewart Gladstone Murray, so you could imagine the kind of family he was born into.

If he wants it will there be a place for Ming on your front bench?

Oh absolutely, we are enormously indebted to Ming for stabilising the party and to making sure that we are getting more professional with the policy and with the organisation and he has a fantastic amount, I think, still to bring.

He was very hard done by, by the press in particular. There is undoubtedly an element of ageism in the whole attitude towards Ming and I said the same about Charles.

One of the things which I think any leader of the party must feel is that we have an enormous amount of talent within the Parliamentary party, we've got plenty enough talent to run a government in my view, and we need to be much more ambitious.

We're not going to take any nonsense, any condescension about the Liberal Democrats because we've actually got a fantastic front bench with a talent that we've got, Ming and Charles, all the other, Nick, Vince, all the other talent, David Laws.

We've got fantastic talent on the front bench and we can run a government. We should not hide our light under a bushel, we need to get out there and persuade people.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-6006.html