Home > Stephen Pollard

Tuesday 2 December 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Not an anti-gay bone

Monday, 16th June 2008

Iain Dale puts Ben Bradshaw in his place:

As you all know by now, yesterday I entered into a civil partnership. We invited a number of friends and family to attend, one of whom was David Davis. It would have been totally understandable if David had pulled out as he has rather a lot of things on his mind at the moment. But not a bit of it. He rang me at mid-day to say he was on his way but he was worried he would be late and didn't want to arrive in the middle of ceremony and upstage it.
David also played a part in the proceedings, and I have been told by several people that he was seen to 'well up' a bit during the ceremony. Having spent the last few days broadcasting to the nation that David "doesn't do emotion" one can only assume he had a bit of grit in his eye!
I could give you countless examples of proof of David's support over the years for gay people, starting from when he was at school where he protected a gay pupil from the local bully to helping Michael Brown when he had troubles with the News of the World. He also proposed my application to get on the candidates list in 2003 and appointed me his chief of staff.
Stonewall reckon he has an anti-gay voting record. They are judging individual votes without looking at the context. He and I have had disagreements about some of these votes, but they do not make him anti-gay. He hasn't got an anti-gay bone in his body, and if he had, I wouldn't have supported him for the leadership.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

C Powell

June 16th, 2008 7:10pm

Note the disgusting allegation that somehow in opposing 42-day detention DD is somehow in favour of terrorists. Labour really have reached the pits with this proposal and with their refusal to debate the issue.

CS

June 17th, 2008 3:13pm

Given that this government lay back and spread its legs to Sinn Fein, it's a bit rich to start accusing others of favouring terrorists.

PJD

June 18th, 2008 12:04am

Facts speak for themselves more than appearing at a Civil Partnership do.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1608&dmp=826

David Boothroyd

June 18th, 2008 12:38am

Iain Dale's piece is, unfortunately, meaningless; he's answering a different point. Ben Bradshaw's point, which is accurate, is that whenever an issue of the law affecting lesbians and gay men came up, David Davis has invariably voted for the most discriminatory policy which would put homosexuality in the most unfavorable situation.

That does not mean that Davis is personally unfriendly. I have experienced both people who believe in discrimination as a policy but are personally relaxed about homosexuality, and people who vigorously oppose discrimination and yet make homophobic remarks in public.

Gavin

June 18th, 2008 7:56am

First of all, Congratulations Ian, and I hope you're both really happy in your future life together.

It's difficult mixing the political with the personal - I see David Davis the politician, whilst for you he is an individual and a friend. However I'm still baffled - how can a politician vote consistently against gay rights and yet not be prejudiced in private? I don't think your citing of 'context' is sufficient - could you expand on Davis's justification for this contradiction in his stance? How did your arguments with him on these votes go?

Some might call it hypocrisy, or perhaps political expediancy. I'm not so sure - isn't it perhaps a classic illustration of the failure of moral imagination which lies at the heart of toryism - the ability to feel affection and sentimentality for one's immediate friends which does not extend beyond into wider society?

This seems to me to be the fundemental moral failure in conservatism, stemming from its innate selfishness. You(and I) were able at last to get married thanks to a Labour government, in a bill fought tooth and nail by the right.

You might (to give a counter-argument) say that the left's moral failure is in seeing the group, not the individual, but it is the liberal left's engagement with social justice, solid, consistent and tireless over decades, which has brought you and I the freedoms we enjoy today.

Anyway - whatever! Hope you had a good day - I just don't think history can so easily be re-written or glossed over.