#ranthill: what a gay day?

one interesting aspect of the ongoingly turgid commentary on the NuPolitics that so shockingly exploded all over the back lawn of number 10 downing street at lunchtime today was a metaphor that arose uncomfortably and then like the blueprints for Cyril Smith’s coffin just increased exponentially. following the first episode of the new series of Chucklevision that was dave and nick’s press conference we initially got lots of experienced correspondents – like the one who looks like the bear from bo selecta! – coughly and spluttering about how “awesomely groundbreaking and historical that just was” and so on, and then the fascinating metaphor in question emerged.

one of the commentators who shuffled alongside Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC News channel came out with this startlingly inappropriate light-hearted reflection: “well, that was a bit like something out of a gay wedding”. hastily adding “erm in California” as if he’d realised that it perhaps wasn’t the wisest thing to have said but instead of clarifying or back-tracking interpreted the feeling of disquiet as the need to distance the image from the leafy bird song-filled london garden from which the cameras had just cut.

strafing past the intriguing question of just what this man thinks goes on at a ‘Californian’ gay wedding, the most interesting thing was that this weird and inappropriate trope persisted throughout the analysis that followed. at least four different contributors, three guest commentators and one reporter, talked about various ways in which d.cam and cleggy were acting like they were getting married or sharing real chemistry or in love or generally acting like a big ‘ol pair of poofs. “tee hee, it looks like they’ve both finally secured a ‘mandate’.” it was like being back in the primary school playground but without the fat ugly lesbians with whistles. or the dinner ladies.

in fact giles brandreth is doing the exact same thing on TV right now as i write – he’s taking it the furthest yet though describing the whips as the Relate councillors of the gay marriage and talking about Dave and Nick upstairs in number 10 in bed doing the ‘Morecombe and Wise’ thing. mind you he also just went on to say that if cameron needs to go to “china or somewhere where they don’t know what he looks like” that he could send Clegg and “noone would realise” so…

all of this insane and inane gayerising of course strikes a disgustingly ironic note given that it comes on the self same day that Theresa May a woman but consistent opponent of equality – who has opposed the repealing of section 28, the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals, gay adoption and abstained from voting when both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Bill went before parliament – has been appointed not only as Home Secretary but also Minister For Women and Equality. apparently Ron Atkinson is top candidate for Diversity Czar, Gary Glitter has put his giant sparkly hat in the ring for head of the Department of Families and Children and an undead Robert Maxwell is set to take charge of the re(vamp)ed Ministry For Work and Pensions.

a senior Conservative spokesperson confirmed to me just now that under a Tory led government apparently all of this “is fine now”.

  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (5)
    • Drew
    • May 13th, 2010

    Renowned homophobe? A wee spot of tabloid hyperbole creeping in to some of your political posts perhaps. I’m no fan of May but she did vote in favour of Civil Partnerships. Just saying…

      • Alex
      • May 13th, 2010


      You’re right, she did vote in favour of Civil Partnerships. However, that’s just skimming the service. The rest of her record doesn’t command much respect. She’s either absent or against every other bill on rights for homosexuals. She is, at best, only a marginal improvement on Chris ‘exclude gay couples’ Grayling.

    • i think if you look at her wider voting record and the statements she made in support of chris grayling over b&b-gate and about the moral imperatives of her ‘christian faith’ (wrapped up in the usual ‘pro-family’ language) it’s pretty clear where she stands on gay issues.

      comparing the way most of the tory front bench voted on civil partnerships and their wider voting records and expressed opinion, i think they were under some sort of whip, or more likely legal advise.

      there probably weren’t any conservatives i would have liked to have seen appointed to that post, but i certainly think it is scandalous to have someone in charge of ‘equality’ who didn’t support the Equality Act.

      plus, hyperbole is fun.

    • Drew
    • May 13th, 2010

    1. Agreed, hyperbole is fun. Particularly when pronounced in an American commentator’s accent with the pronunciation of ‘SUPERBOWL!’
    2, Clearly also, TM has a chequered voting history, and some unsurprisingly conservative views, but as you have rightly pointed out, voting (particularly under the last administration) has been so heavily politicised and whip dominated.
    3. My issue/concern is more with the incredibly polarised views I encounter on every news outlet/commentary at the moment. Cameron is posted variously as either the Messiah or the anti-Christ. I am puzzled at the extremity of views, when, in my eyes, the markets and malignant forces of corporate Britain are going to shape the majority of decisions any coloured government would make (other than Green of course). It is such a spirit that I dipped my toe into the murky waters of moderation to challenge your use of the phrase ‘renowned homophobe’. I think the labelling and screaming that goes on can easily stunt dialogue and reduce the voice of those who would want to challenge a right leaning government in a more crafty and subtle way. In my experience, once you’ve called someone a homophobe, they tend not to listen to you much after that.
    4. I take myself and this blog way too seriously.
    5. You are gay.

    • i take your seriously too buddy, ’cause you’re a serious person afloat in a sea of idiots. and i’m glad you take this blog seriously, even though it’s a load of old nonsense.

      partly therefore, upon reflection, i have changed ‘renouned homophobe’ to the tamer ‘consistent opponent of equality’. which makes my point in a slightly less inflammatory way. i have also added some more detail of her inappropriateness based on more tangible evidence.

      i still think she’s obviously a massive homophobe, but i can’t back up my suspicions particularly convincingly.

      i am gay, but only for pay. which is how i know teresa may (as opposed to theresa may) http://www.wowstars.com/pornstar/teresa_may.html

Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: