THE VOTE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME

. . . not to Labour, that is. It could well go Conservative now

Anne McElvoy explains changing Tory attitudes to homosexuals,

and changing homosexual attitudes to Tories

IN TWO weeks' time, at the annual Gay Pride march, an estimated 100,000 homo- sexual men and lesbians will march through Westminster. The march — the second largest public gathering in the capital, after the Notting Hill carnival — is the most striking visual symbol of British homosexu- als' desire to present themselves as a coher- ent social group with distinct aims.

We know more now than ever before about what Britain's homosexuals think and feel. Homosexual love is eulogised in films like My Beautiful Laundrette and the new boy-meets-boy sum- mer hit, Beautiful Thing. No televi- sion soap opera is complete without a gay trauma or two, and the BBC's Gaytime TV confronts viewers with homosexual wit, icons and lust-objects. Big companies like Bass and Allied Domecq have identified homosexuals as an eco- nomically important group. Televi- sion and cinema advertisements shamelessly chase the 'pink pound'. The one aspect of homosexual life about which whispering discretion still prevails is how they vote.

Whether there is a distinct homosexual vote at all, and if so, how it is developing and whom it will ultimately benefit, is one of the least aired psephological questions in modern politics. If, as widely expected, the Tories emulate the England footballers against Holland and pull back from the slough of despond to make a serious challenge for victory, the 'pink swing' could even be one of the factors which decide the outcome of a closely fought election. The common wisdom is that homosexu- als are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative. But that judgment owes more to the political predilections of 'gay activists' than it does to any reliable research about the voting habits of homo- sexuals. Traditionally, campaigners have seen Labour and the Liberal Democrats as the parties worth lobbying, and regarded the Tories as hostile to a homosexual way of life and to law reforms. The main niche newspapers, Gay Times and the Pink Paper, have tended to support the Labour Party.

Now, however, Rob Hayward, who lost his seat as Tory MP for Kingston upon Thames at the 1992 general election, and was later Tory candidate at the Christchurch by-election, has taken the plunge with a research paper on the sub- ject entitled 'The Gay Vote: Its Location and Changing Influence'. Hayward is that rarity: a numerate politician. He is an amateur psephologist, and was the 'num- ber-cruncher' in the campaign team of ministers and MPs which won John Major the Tory leadership in 1990. It concludes that the increasing geographical and cul- tural concentration of homosexuals in Britain is creating a more coherent group of voters and that they are just as likely to swing to the Right as to the Left. The assumption that the natural home of homosexuals is on the Left is now ques- tioned — not least by homosexuals them- selves. Paul Clements, the new editor of the Pink Paper, has decided to make the paper unaligned. 'The waters are muddied nowadays,' he says. 'Gay people no longer automatically assume that Labour is their friend and the Tories are their enemy.'

The reason for the shift is to be found in the behaviour of both parties. Tony Blair enjoyed high standing with homosexual voters. He attended the equality campaign group Stonewall's gala in the first weeks of his leadership, and his barrister wife Cherie represents a lesbian who is taking South- West Trains to the European Court for sex- ual discrimination because it refused to grant her live-in lover the free travel it allows to heterosexual spouses. The Blairs have many homosexual friends in their social circle. 'As far as we were concerned,' says one young man, sipping a coffee in the gay mecca of Old Compton Street, 'they were the fag-friendly couple. There was even something nice and camp about them.'

Disappointment set in when Mr Blair absented himself from the Commons vote on whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the army, despite Labour's commitment to support the scrapping of the ban. The Party's authoritarian shift on law enforcement, the rhetorical con- centration on the conventional family and a nervous anticipation of how Tory newspapers will interpret any liberalising moves on homosexuality have also left many 'gay' campaigners sensing that a Labour victory would not automatically bring the reforms they desire.

There is anecdotal evidence that those voters for whom homosexual rights are an important part of decision- making at election time are turning away from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, who now have an explicit 'gay rights' char- ter. 'There is a feeling among gays and les- bians that when it comes to the crunch Labour will duck the issue,' says Peter Tatchell, the homosexual campaigner and former Labour candidate for Bermondsey. `It wouldn't change my own allegiance, but some people are feeling very disillusioned with Labour over the leadership's absten- tion in the Gays in the Military vote and the 39 Labour MPs who voted against the lowering of the age of consent to 16.'

At the same time, the Conservatives are losing their `gay-basher' image — not, it must be said, by virtue of any self-examina- tion, but because the Party is undergoing a generational shift, and young people of all classes and political persuasions are more relaxed in their attitudes to homosexuality than older ones. Says Mr Clements, 'The result of these trends taken together is that gays are less likely to take a particular political affiliation for granted. They are more likely to look around and to be equal- ly sceptical abotit both the main parties.'

Probably the most contentious question is how many homosexual men and lesbians there are in Britain. Estimates range between 800,000 and 3.5 million, depend- ing on how homosexuality is defined. David Butler of Nuffield College, Oxford, the father of psephology, believes that as many as 10 per cent of the electorate could be considered homosexual, but doubts Mr Hayward's conclusion that it is likely to develop as a distinct group of vot- ers. Like many academic psephologists, he shies away from the idea of a distinct 'gay vote'. 'It all sounds a bit specious to me,' he said. 'Sorry, got to go. Got someone for breakfast.'

Mr Hayward has been careful not to base his conclusions on the 'one-in-ten' view of the prevalence of homosexuality. Various research projects in the last five years have produced wildly different conclusions about the numbers of homosexuals in Britain. The far more important question for party strategists is in which constituen- cies those who do consider themselves as belonging to such a group settle and vote, and what factors govern their electoral choices.

The signs are that Britain's homosexuals live more openly than ever before and that the flowering of 'gay' bars, clubs and restaurants means that they tend to spend more free time than ever in the company of people of their own sexual persuasion. Their choice of where to reside and work may also be influenced by the pull of exist- ing homosexual 'communities' — a contro- versial notion in the context, but allowable as shorthand for areas which are consid- ered tolerant towards homosexuals.

`This as a factor should not be disregard- ed in preparing for a general election,' says Mr Hayward. 'Even on a conservative esti- mate, the gay community is larger than the Jewish one. It is probably larger than any single ethnic minority vote.'

Social pressures, he says, have tended to prompt homosexual men to move to the cities, particularly London and Edinburgh. (Lesbians, he points out, are more 'invisi- ble'. They are more likely to settle down later into heterosexual relationships and are thus more difficult to quantify.) Homo- sexuals are more mobile than heterosexual voters because of their relative lack of com- mitments. They tend to rent rather than buy, particularly if they move to the bigger cities.

Not having to worry about education for their children, they do not feel the same compulsion as middle-class heterosexuals to move to the socially better-off areas as parenthood beckons. Because they tend to be more mobile than heterosexuals in the same age range, they are less likely to qual- ify for council housing — so we could expect more homosexuals to settle in areas where there is plenty of rented accommo- dation available, or where relatively cheap owner-occupier housing is on offer. The exceptions to this are boroughs like South- wark, Lambeth and Haringey where 'pro- gay' housing policies make access to council accommodation easier for homo- sexuals.

On these criteria, the first batch of par- liamentary seats in which Mr Hayward dis- cerns concentrations of homosexual voters are Brighton Kemptown, Brighton Pavil- ion, Hove, Bournemouth East and Bournemouth West. In London, where the homosexual population is higher than any- where else in the country, it is easier to list the seats not included. They are probably the working-class areas of North South- wark, Bermondsey (despite its famous resi- dent Mr Tatchell's best efforts), Camberwell and Peckham, Lewisham East and West, the Greenwich borough seats, Bethnal Green and Bow, Poplar and Can- ning Town and Hackney South and Shoreditch.

In outer London and the Home Coun- ties, the following are thought to have potential for 'pink swing': Walthamstow, Leyton and Wanstead, Brent East, Mitcham and Morden, Richmond Park, Brentford and Isleworth, Acton and Shep- herds Bush, Feltham and Heston, Spelthorne, Crawley and possibly Windsor and Bracknell.

On Scottish turf outside Edinburgh, the newly created Glasgow Kelvin most closely fits the criteria identified by Mr Hayward. In the North of England it is harder to identify distinctly 'gay' areas. It is impor- tant not to be misled by extraneous criteria. Central Manchester, for instance, has a `gay village' and is the focus of the region's homosexual nightlife. But the large propor- tion of council-built accommodation makes it unlikely that it has an above-average number of homosexual voters. They are more likely to be concentrated in the south-west of the city (as a result of hous- ing policy). The seats would therefore be Salford, Manchester Withington, Altrin- cham and Sale West, Hazel Grove, Chea- dle and Stockport. The marginal Blackpool South and to a lesser extent Blackpool North are also included in these criteria.

In Birmingham — if we judge by the fair- ly accurate guideline of the presence of thriving 'gay' bars and clubs — a distinct community is only now developing. The only constituencies which on Mr Hayward's research guidelines would appear to reflect this are Edgbaston and Sellyoak. In the other main English conurbations of Merseyside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and West/South Yorkshire, there is little evi- dence of any such draw. Mr Hayward con- cludes that the most logical locations for the development of an openly 'gay' com- munity would be in Leeds Central, North- east and North-west and in the Jesmond area of Newcastle (Newcastle Central).

What conclusions should MPs and party strategists draw from this information? In terms of political history, there is little rea- son to believe that homosexuals have ever voted as a bloc. But there are limited, changeable influences which may influence their choices.

The first is the perception of attitudes towards homosexuals in the main parties. The Tory Party is still considered more homophobic than Labour. The impression of Conservative hostility was compounded by the passage of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act under Lady Thatcher's government, restricting the freedom of schools and local authorities to publicise homosexual lifestyles. In homosexual sub- culture, Lady Thatcher occupies an ambivalent position, somewhere between dragon and goddess — a reputation she shares with Mary Whitehouse. John Major does not figure highly in the canon of 'gay' icons.

Higher public tolerance of homosexuality has finally reached the Tories. We may slowly be approaching the point at which suspected homosexuality or a homosexual past, although always of interest to West- minster's gossip-mongers, is no longer a bar to the highest office.

In February 1994, 44 MPs, including the gifted young Minister for Wales, William Hague, voted for the (ultimately defeated) lowering of the age of consent to 16. A dis- proportionately high number of MPs with London constituencies did so, as did Black- pool North's Harold Elletson — the first suggestion that they are mindful of how their homosexual constituents will judge their record on such legislation. The Con- servatives now have their first openly gay MP in Michael Brown, the member for Cleethorpes who kept his seat despite tabloid revelations of a homosexual affair with a student.

Another key factor determining voting trends is the work we do. In the 1960s and 1970s, when homosexual life became more open but not as socially assimilated as today, it is likely that a disproportionately high number joined industries and services in which they felt more secure about accep- tance — like the NHS, local authorities and civil service. These occupations tended to be the most heavily unionised and left- leaning, shoring up a gay vote for Labour.

`Historically,' says Mr Hayward, 'the fact that gays were unlikely to know who other gays were meant that they were more influ- enced by their own heterosexual social and economic peer groups. When society forces secrecy on individuals, it is difficult for cohesion to occur.'

Nowadays, homosexuals are more likely to be spread throughout the job market, so their public-sector affinity with Labour (coupled with a decline in union confi- dence and membership) is likely to fall further.

The higher disposable income available because of fewer personal commitments should make homosexuals more inclined towards the Conservative Party for tax rea- sons. More likely than their heterosexual peers to live in single-member households and usually without the financial burden of children, they keep a higher proportion of their earnings. The signs are that the openly gay community is becoming older and wealthier,' says Mr Hayward. 'It is maturing as a group. As homosexuals get older, they are going to be more concerned about hanging on to their money than about making a social or cultural statement when they vote.'

In other words, they can be judged by the same criteria as other aspirant groups. That means that they are likely to be for New Labour at present, but with potential to swing to the Tories closer to the election if they become rattled about Labour's tax plans. The same process of electoral 'nor- malising' was experienced by the Irish and other immigrant groups (with the exception of Blacks) in America during the 1970s. The Democratic presidential candidacy of George McGovern, with its left-wing over- tones and cooling of ardour towards Israel, lost swathes of the immigrant vote — the Irish found his opposition to the Vietnam war unpatriotic, the Jews thought the Democrats too influenced by New Left dis- like of Israel.

In Britain, the Jewish vote went mainly to Labour until the arrival of Mrs Thatcher. It now counts as heavily Tory. A significant shift in Asian voting also occurred in the 1980s when prosperous and aspiring Asians moved from Labour to the Tories. There is no reason to believe that the homosexual vote will automatically stay loyal to Labour as those who wield it get richer and their scepticism increases about New Labour's promises of sweeping social change. There may soon come a time when the one-legged Irish Lesbian beloved of chroniclers of loony Left lore is seen as a target voter by Conservative Central Office and courted accordingly. Sitting MPs in key marginals can be astonishingly broad-minded.