Charles Anglin is a Liberal Democrat. He's also black. He's also gay. Until May he was a LibDem councillor in Lambeth. Shortly before the local elections his local paper ran a lurid story of him posing semi-naked on a gay dating website. Result? He lost his council seat. He was, of course, very naive to have done this. Why am I mentioning this now? Because he's written a very thought provoking piece on his BLOG on the subject in which he says the experience probably means he'll never run for election again. Here's an extract...
If the price of being open about who I am is to lose office then that is I'm afraid a price well worth paying.I doubt I'll ever run for office again - having been a political activist all my adult life now that I've tasted freedom I must confess that I rather like it. However, this isn't just about what happened to me - it's about what kind of politicians we want as a society. How often have we heard the complaint that politicians are aloof and separate, that one of the causes of political disaffection is that they lead lives completely divorced from the experiences of the electorate. Now we are told that it is only those people who conform to an imagined ideal of behaviour who are fit to hold office. Surely we can't have it both ways. Yes 'when you voluntarily enter public life there are some constraints' the public have a right to expect certain standards from their elected representatives. They have the right to expect that they will not break the law, the right to expect that they will not do or say one thing in public and another in private, they have the right to expect that they will not do anything that stops them fulfilling the job to which they were elected.
But what they do not have the right to is determine how a politician lives their private life. By private, I don't mean hidden and unseen - I mean that part of their life that is not accountable, whether it be that they go to church on Sunday, have a secret taste for barn dancing or they get dates on the internet.If we want to have politicians who are vaguely recognisable as members of the human race then we are going to have to stop attacking them for being...well....frankly...human. That is particularly true of those who so presumptuously claim to be in the vanguard of liberal thinking. For me the role of Liberals is not to criticise people for exercising their freedoms it is to defend them.
You can read the full article HERE. I don't know Charles Anglin but I have met him a couple of times. I do remember having a conversation with him once and thinking that he would make a good MP and the LibDems would do well to nurture him. He did nothing illegal and he did nothing hypocritical. He made a silly mistake and he's paid the price. His experience illustrates very well why so many people are put off a political career. If he reads this, I hope he'll think again... Having said that, knowing my luck with LibDems he'll now stand against me wherever I end up and win!
26 comments:
I know and like Charles Anglin and feel very sad about this. I think by and large he's right. As long as politicians aren't trying to interfere in other people's personal lives, they ought to have the right to a personal life of their own. Most people get to leave work, go home, and be themselves; however in our society we don't seem able to let politicians have the same right.
I'm afraid, Iain, politicians are in the market place like every other business. If the customers (aka electors) don't like the product that's tough - they don't buy (or elect you). It's just no good saying you have a wonderful product that they ought to buy, or they must take you as they find you - they may not and you loose. They owe no duty to you - you must please them. If they didn't like the gay gentleman appearing on the net that's his problem, not theirs. I've been connected with politics all my life since the age of six, and it is (as you know) a rough, tough business.
The word is judgement. We expect our elected officials to show good judgement. Posing naked with one's hands covering one's genitals on a dating website (whether straight or gay) does not show good judgement.
"Posing naked with one's hands covering one's genitals on a dating website (whether straight or gay) does not show good judgement."
One should have thought that that probably depended on the size of the genitals in question...
(and I think I may once have seen Glenda Jackson's naked lady-bumps in the cinema - well on screen, obviously - and that makes no appreciable difference to either that lady's politics or my attitude to them - the politics, obviously)
I'm with Man of Kent. That was very poor judgement. Voters, by and large want their politicians to use some judgement and this behaviour does not speak well for how he would deal with other issues that require fine judgement.
Pedant is right. The voters didn't like what he did. He put his desire for exhibitionism above his career. The voters didn't do it. He did it.
Sorry, Iain, he may be very nice and have the makings of a good MP, but the voters didn't think so.
I also didn't think his piece was "thought-provoking". I thought it self-exculpatory. And now, he is trying to universalise his position: "However, this isn't just about what happened to me - it's about what kind of politicians we want as a society."
No. It's about you.
"I think I may once have seen Glenda Jackson's naked lady-bumps in the cinema "
http://members.tripod.com/david_fiddes/glendaj.jpg
While it's definitely true that Charles Anglin suffered electorally from the South London Press story, and polled substantially fewer votes than the other two Liberal Democrat candidates (676 votes, against 827 and 901), it's unlikely that it was decisive in losing him the seat as the lowest polling Labour candidate had 1,546 votes.
Perhaps my reaction is best summed up by the fact that, when I saw the South London Press piece, I immediately deleted my profile from Gaydar (and a few other sites). I don't believe he should have had that story, but there's just no way of solving it. As all gay men know, gay society runs by different rules to straight society. It's not possible to order people not to discriminate.
This isn't actually an unprecedented situation. Candidates from the ethnic minorities have always performed less well than others (which includes white candidates in Tower Hamlets).
But if you have nude photos tastefully done by a professional and put in a centre spread in a gay magazine you get to be an A-lister. Go figure!
:)
Sir Bentley Pauncefoot graciously uttered the following illuminating thought:
"I think I may once have seen Glenda Jackson's naked lady-bumps"
I didn't know she'd had twins.
Private lives are for private people. A politician can be a statesman a criminal a lier a frauster an adulterer a saint or a homosexual,and quite often are. Sometimes all of the above. Sometimes all at the same time.
The voters decide what they want, which is how in a democracy it MUST be.
Therefore one thing a prospective candidate or MP must not be is PRIVATE in anyway, including if they so wish, exposing their naked bodies on the webb.
Some may find this an electorial advantage. Glenda Jacksons regular exposure of her sad little glands, I think helped her credibility. After all a dishonest female politician would have had a boob job or kept their fried eggs in a badded bra.
A helpfull idear would be to have a weekly MI5 report on every MPs activities. Including all their telephone conversations, bussiness, tax and financial affairs. All personal and business connections of any type registered and updated. All business and political meetings recorded. This imformation posted on the webb and freely available. If politicians dont like it, there are plenty of HONEST hardworking public spirited ordinary British people, myself included, that would not mind a bit, to take their place.
DC says he wants to regain the trust of the British public in politicians and the democratic process. I have just given him the only way NOW this could possibly ever be acheived.
How does anyone know that he lost his council seat because of the picture? He could have lost because he didn't do enough canvassing, or his literature was rubbish, or people took umbrage at the new speed humps introduced in Acacia Avenue or whatever. Or perhaps it rained on election day dissauding people from voting. There are so many factors in an election campaign - how can it be narrowed down to just one factor - was a special poll done to find out?
Postscript to my comment - after all Chris Bryant did the same thing in a much less gay friendly area (I would have thought) but got re-elected.
Sorry to go on but Wikipedia says "All three Liberal Democrat councillors standing in Princes ward were defeated." -ie the other two as well as Charles.
The Liberal Democrats also lost a further seven seats on Lambeth in 2006, so to blame the photo/tabloid coverage is far-fetched. I would be delighted to hear further evidence.
Paul, see David Boothroyd above. Charles's vote was way down on the other two LibDems. I assume there was only one reason for that.
"Postscript to my comment - after all Chris Bryant did the same thing in a much less gay friendly area (I would have thought) but got re-elected."
With an increased majority!
(and maybe Rhondda is more gay friendly than what some people think.)
Iagree with Pedant: the simple truth if that the electorate is entitled to be as inconsistent as it likes - that is what democracy is all about. Politicians do not have the right to be treated fairly by those whose votes they seek. The unfortunate thing is that the press choose to focus on these stories rather than the real issues - although again, freedom of the press is pretty fundamental to democracy, even if they are mostly a bunch of gutter rats more interested in sales than democracy.
Angin can't claim the matter is part of his private life. Posing for semi-nude photos which are then published with his consent to the wider public is not a private act. Its exhibitionism. So pleas to one's private life etc are self-serving cant.
He made a silly error of judgment. But not one which should preclude him standing for elected office should he feel up to it. Obviously he will be the butt (no pun) of jokes as a consequence, and may not be taken seriously. I suspect it will all be forgotten in time. Just as the notorious Y fronts incident with Chris Bryant has been.
Elected officials are in leadership positions. People, whether unreasonably or not, expect higher standards from them. The people are sovereign. They applied the boot. End of story.
I have met Charle's a couple of times, and found him a jovial and amusing young man. I also disagreed with him on a few political issues. But are we sure this is the reason he lost - I mean, it might just be he was a crap councillor!
But, having met him, I do think it is a shame for him, and he has perhaps acted naively given his aspirations for public office.
But my take on this is that this says something about modern sexual culture (gay and straight by the way), where appearing naked on a website is how one goes about 'contacting' other people.
Although by this I probably mean I am being critical of the more promiscuous activities of some gay men, but I also reserve the right to criticise hetrosexual promiscuity! I am not intolerant, and quite OK about people having sex - because I do too and it's fun! But I just think we as a society have just become too sexualised for our own good - and sex is now the be all and end all for so many people. And most of my freinds who are gay agree with me!
Certianly, sites like Gaydar serve a purpose, particularly in a society which is probably still somewhat intolerant of homosexuality. But why does an advert have to be of a young man naked. It isn't exactly saying 'Hey, contact me if you fancy an interesting and stimulating conversation about history and curent affairs' does it? It says "Hi, fancy a shag"? I think this is just bana!
I guess I just want to know why society has ended up where it has that people now appear naked on the web to meet people. What's wrong with going to the pub, or joining a gym? Why has society dumbed itself down to this level?
If we want to have politicians who are vaguely recognisable as members of the human race then we are going to have to stop attacking them for being...well....frankly...human.
To be honest I tend not to choose my politicians from the extremes of the human race.
My MP is a privately educated, secular, new labour lawyer. These are all negatives in my view, but he is an excellent constituency MP and will probably get my vote again.
Dear Fruning. Thanks, and I agree that it would be unsavouray to be approached by predatory gay men anywhere. Fortunately, most gay men I know are very discreet and discerning people who would not actively put someone else in a situaton which made them feel uncomfortable. I was once chatted up by a gay bloke in a gym, and after realising what he was all about I felt somehwat flattered (wasn't really tempted though - am very comfortably straight - so far at least - which means I just obviously haven't met the right man - ha ha), I explained I was straight, he offered an apology if I felt awkward, and I said no apology was needed. We still chat whe we see each other at the gym!
What I meant is that society in general, gay/sraight or whatever), seem to have lost a lot of our social skills. We have become less polite, less 'formal', and now everything seems to revolve around getting hammered and getting laid!
What I meant was that whilst 'dating sites' are fine for filling some of the gap (especially for gay people who still suffer a lot of prejudice), I do just wish people would still just talk to people eye to eye, rather than by email!
Fundamentally, I just think posting a nude pic of yourself on a website gives a clear indication of what the motivation for posting was. And in this case, I strongly suggest that it wasn't for stimulation of the intelectual type.
David Boothroyd also said: "it's unlikely that it was decisive in losing him the seat"
Thanks for the kind words Iain.
The voters gave me some very strong advice to go away and do something else and I am inclined to take it. Life moves on and although no-one knows what will happen in a few years time right now I'm rather enjoying having a life again after 20 years of delivering leaflets.
I'm neither bitter nor angry about what happened to me. Politics is a rough old game and when you put your head over the parapet then someone is liable to throw something at it. I wouldn't have it any other way - I'm still as opposed as I've always been to privacy laws - I'd rather live in a society where a tabloid can print things about me than one where state bureaucrats tell me what I can and cannot read.
Thankfully we live in a democracy (despite John Reid's best attempts) and the electorate has every right to decide that they don't like someone for whatever reason.
My point though is this - is it better to have politicians who change or hide their lifestyle in order to appear acceptable to the electorate or ones who are open about who they are and say take it or leave it?
It would indeed have been a better 'political judgement' not to have posted the ad but that's the problem. So long as it is considered to be a political necessity to be if not hypocritical then at the very least disingenuous then our politics are that much poorer for it.
Losing votes is the ultimate proof of unpopularity & the rules may well be unfairly different for gay as opposed to heterosexual hi-jinks but I am not convinced that the people are as prudish as the media believe.
The Sun did a story on Ashdown's adultery just before his last election - he was honest about it & it probably made him more popular.
Equally a jury decided to award Tommy Sheriden a large amount more on the grounds that it wasn't the NOTW's business than on the evidence.
"So long as it is considered to be a political necessity to be if not hypocritical then at the very least disingenuous"
It's not disingenuous to find another way of finding boyfriends other than putting a full frontal nude photo of yourself on the internet.
Bulleye/Charles! Behave mate. This is nothing to do with being hypocritical or disingenuous. It's about people finding the idea of a publicly elected individual posting soft-core porn of himself on a website which was clearly intended to say 'give me a call if you fancy some cock fellas'.
I suspect that the same would have happened if you were straight and into swinging - and told the world about it through a web post.
The simple fact is that people expect their politicians to act with a little more decorum than you showed. But as well as that, it showed utter lack of judgement.
You would have more credibility if you just put your hands up and said' I was dumb, it was a really stupid mistake and I won't do it again' rather than trying to put the blame on the electorate for not supporting someone who acts in a way which they feel shows a complete political naivity and lack of judgement.
If you do put your hands up though - can you make sure you are not naked and holding your todger at the time please!
Thanks, and good luck for the future. Hope you reconsider, as everyone deserves a second chance.
Soft core porn? mmmmm…..a touch of the Mary Whitehouse there I think, Adrian.
The pic in question was about as risque as Adam Rickett’s pop video or a clip from the Full Monty – so maybe we’ve got slightly different definitions!
Anyway, you shouldn’t make so many assumptions either – the ad talked about a lot more than sex, because there is I think there's quite a lot more to methan that - from politics, to wrestling, to 1970’s soul music. But yes it was pretty upfront about who I am and what I like.
BTW I don’t blame the electorate or any one else for what happened – I know that posting the pic was a silly mistake, a daft thing for someone who wanted a political career.
But that’s my point really – a modern politician has to be far more calculating and cautious about what they say and do and how they appear than I am prepared to be. I just don’t want a political career hard enough to change my life into something more ‘politically’ acceptable. If the price of that is that I no longer have a political career then so be it - life goes on without me & my life goes on without politics.
But there really is a wider question beyond whether I was being daft or not - do we really want politics only populated by people who want office so badly they will jump through any & every hoop to get there?
Even more importantly there are plenty of other people, far more talented and worthwhile than me, who will make a similar calculation to mine and decide that politics is just isn't worth the hassle. In the end we really will end up with a political class who simply have no relationship with the real world.
Post a Comment