In the mysterious world of Tory politics 'sexuality' never means heterosexuality
FRANK JOHNSON
Awriter in one of the papers has referred to Mr Portillo's 'cruel Castilian lips'. It was unclear whether the writer considered them an asset. If so, it is hard to know how his rivals for the Tory leadership could trump them. Mr Clarke's supporters could extol his 'cruel Nottinghamshire paunch'. But it could be that the party members, who will have the last vote, do not want cruelty of any kind in their leaders any more. Mr Portillo seems to think they do not. His campaign is founded on making the Tories look kinder. He would rather that the papers wrote of his 'inclusive Castilian lips'. Perhaps, however, the lips issue will prove to be irrelevant.
But Mr Portillo's 'sexuality' is certainly at the moment relevant. People who use the word 'sexuality' mean 'homosexuality' or 'bisexuality', never 'heterosexuality'. That is so in Mr Portillo's case. In all the conversations I have had with Conservative MPs about the leadership election, it has been raised within minutes. But it would be healthier if the matter were not publicly discussed by recourse to euphemism. It is no good Sir Malcolm Rifkind referring, as he did in a television interview, to its being perhaps 'a very dangerous experiment' to make Mr Portillo leader. Dangerous in what way? Not his policies; he has shown that he is prepared to change them. He has changed them in the direction of Sir Malcolm's own, Sir Malcolm being no right-winger. Is 'dangerous experiment' a euphemism for Mr Portillo's 'sexuality'? If not, what else could it refer to?
Lord Tebbit cannot be accused of resorting to euphemism. He told a television interviewer that Mr lain Duncan Smith was 'remarkably normal'; surely an oxymoron. How can someone be remarkably normal? Surely to be remarkable is to depart from the norm. Not, however, to depart in this case from the Norm Tebbit. For the remark has been universally acknowledged to be Lord Tebbit's way of claiming that normal was what Mr Portillo was remarkably not.
In my conversations about Mr Portillo with Tory MPs, including those who intend to vote for him (as at the moment do a majority), there is always broad agreement that Lord Tebbit's remark was deplorable, the most spectacular example yet of his famed 'homophobia'. Especially so when taken in conjunction with his answer to an election-night interviewer's question to him as to whether Mr Portillo was 'getting cold feet' about standing for the leadership CI don't know. I've never slept with him').
'Typical Norman. Obsessed with it, he is.' Someone always says that, Then I make an effort, sort of, to defend him. My line is: at least he makes it clear he can't stand 'em, and can't stand Mr Portillo because he admits to having been one of 'em. Sure, old Norm's a homophobe. But you know where you are with him, on this subject at least. Several million votes adrift among the educated middle classes — the only people who at present bother to go to the polling stations. That's where you are with old Norm. He wants the Tories to take the Romford Option. (Romford was the Essex constituency, part of the diaspora of the old London East End, where a Tebbitesque Tory secured one of the few Tory gains from Labour at the election. For that reason, it is as untypical of Middle England as Mississippi is of Middle America.) But he genuinely believes that the Tories only lose elections because they are not right-wing enough.
Then conversation moves on to the future. Is there any more to come out?' That is what someone always asks. Then we all try to remember what it was that Mr Portillo actually said when, in that Times interview. he 'came out'. We eventually agree it was something like: 'I had some homosexual experiences as a young person.'
We go on to debate how old you have to be still to qualify as a 'young person'. I err on the side of generosity. I put the cut-off point at some antiquity; that is, 30. Mr Portillo could have had 'some homosexual experiences' until he was 30, and still have told the Times the truth, I claim. But it would be best, for the sake of his truthfulness, if there were no more after that. Then someone always says: 'Thirty's pushing it a bit.' Someone else says that I only think someone just under 30 is still young because I am myself becoming old. This is usually said by an anti-Portillo MP in his late thirties. Conversation on this subject then becomes inconclusive.
The question 'Is there any more to come out?' is never resolved. Do the tabloids have any more on him? The Daily Mail produced the death from Aids, only days before the election, of a former lover. He is the second former lover thus to have died. Another former lover, who died of Aids, became known about just after Mr Portillo 'came out' a couple of years ago. Two former lovers dead from Aids. To some of us, that seems rather a high rate. Any more? Any more former lovers to become known, that is; not necessarily former lovers who have died of Aids. One more of those and even his Tory supporters may conclude that this man might be lethal.
But surely, someone asks, if 'they' — that is, the tabloids — had anything more on Mr Portillo's homosexual past, they would have printed it by now? Whereupon, someone says that they are biding their time until he reaches the top. I reply that tabloids are not like that. As far as they are concerned, Cabinet minister and shadow chancellor are already the top. If they had it, they would have printed it by now. After all, no tabloid can know that a rival tabloid has not got it.
Quite so; but what if he becomes leader, and someone else claims to have been his lover? That is, claims to have been his lover after he can plausibly be described as 'a young person'. I then argue that our libel laws make it risky for any paper to print that. How could they prove it? Our libel laws place the burden of proof completely on the accuser. My final position, in these conversations, is that even if `more' becomes known, we should forgive him if he has not been entirely candid. In this age of intrusion, no public figure should be condemned for not telling the whole truth about his private life. Because a majority of Americans took my view, President Clinton escaped impeachment.
But perhaps that was because Mr Clinton was 'caring'. Mr Portillo is trying to reinvent himself as 'caring'. But it may be too late. Most voters may remember him as the uncaring right-winger because that was what he appeared to be when it suited him to appear so.
Conversations like this — conversations which at this moment are taking place at all levels of the Conservative party — must be unique in the party's history. Sexuality was not an issue in the leadership contests between Baldwin and Curzon, Butler and Macmillan, Butler, Hailsham and DouglasHome. In those contests, the candidates' 'sexuality' was not an issue. Who says the Tory party is detached from the age in which we live? Mr Portillo's candidacy is a fit subject for Miss Winfrey.
I am as undecided about him as the next Tory. I shall return to the subject before I reach my decision, or perhaps my indecision.
Previous page
