The very possibility of bisexuality can sometimes run into the same disbelief that Queen Victoria is said to have shown towards lesbianism, reads the editorial in today's Guardian. And who are we to argue?
It has to be said that something is awry when rumours about a politician's sexuality leave him feeling forced to publicise the miscarriages his wife has suffered. Quite what that something is, however, is harder to pinpoint than it would have been in the past. William Hague made his extraordinary statement on Wednesday despite serving in a government alongside openly gay ministers. Homosexuality is not the bar to office that it once was, and yet gay politicians face a distinctive pressure to declare themselves as such.
While suggestions that the foreign secretary is anything other than straight are no more than gossip, in a truly tolerant society there would be nothing to gossip about. To see that there still is, consider the case of Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister who last week let the press know he was leaving his wife to "come to terms" with being gay. While it may indeed be OK to be gay in public life, it is not done to be unsure about it. The very possibility of bisexuality can sometimes run into the same disbelief that Queen Victoria is said to have shown towards lesbianism. In this warped context the harrowing experience of marital miscarriage can be offered up to counter allegations of sleeping with men, whereas it should be no more material than it would be in the case of an affair with a woman.
All sorts of people are coy in discussing who tugs on their heartstrings. But from Ron Davies' "moment of madness" 12 years ago to David Laws' resignation this spring, politicians of all stripes have paid a price for being anything less than upfront about any attraction they feel towards the same sex. That price is perhaps especially high for those cut from conservative cloth. This is less a point about the top of today's Conservative party, which David Cameron has gone to some lengths to lead towards tolerance, than about those parts of society where old prejudices still lurk. Homophobia has touched all wings of politics over the decades, but it is most easy to find on the right. Fusty assumptions that liberals first challenged two generations ago have only faced serious challenge within reactionary circles during the last few years. Some of the mud hurled Mr Hague's way seems to trace back to his own constituency association, while Mr Blunt's local party is reportedly "unhappy" that he had dared to keep his private feelings private. While the slow tide towards tolerance appears irreversible, Mr Cameron's own vote against fair access to IVF for would-be lesbian mothers is another reminder that it has a way to go.
The prime minister was nonetheless standing solidly with his foreign secretary yesterday, just as he stood alongside Mr Blunt, whose welcome political survival is a heartening reminder of how times have progressed. It has often been said that sex itself is less politically poisonous than all the connected questions of finance, probity or supposed security risks, and that is doubly true today. The only possible public interest question in connection with Mr Hague is whether any hypothetical feelings he harboured for his aide Chris Myers prompted him to appoint him as a special adviser. Even if this did happen, it is not certain that any rule would have been broken, since such rules as there are state that advisers are "exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit".
Just as MPs were once able to appoint their spouses as secretaries, ministers recruiting advisers are still unaccountable for their choice. As we report today, the coalition is placing political staffers into supposedly apolitical official roles, perhaps to avoid taking flak for creating more of the unpopular special adviser posts. That is the wrong response, but so is a kneejerk bar on all political appointees. In order to work with an apolitical bureaucracy, ministers need to be able make a few appointments of their own. They ought, however, to be answerable for these. Making them so would help to prevent private lives from being dragged into the public mire.
