Doubts about Portillo

David Twiston Davies
SEE NO overwhelming reason, at a personal level, why the former Conserva've minister Michael Portillo should not become MP for Kensington and Chelsea simply because he has admitted to having a homosexual past.
Mr Portillo was a leading member of the last administration, whose defeat in the 1997 General Election was probably felt more by his party than that of any other Tory MP; his commitment to traditional Christian morality must make his return to the Commons welcome. The fact that he has a wife signals that he turned over a new leaf on his marriage 17 years ago, so he has some right to expect to be forgiven for any affront caused by his public confession just before this year's Tory confer.. ence.
Whether he has deeply offended that censorious streak which lurks in ordinary middle-, class voters is still unclear. But one can admire him for owning up, though he must have been partly prompted by a realisation that the matter would eventually become public knowledge. It Is also much to his credit that he never allowed himself to be infoenced by the demands of the homosexual lobby when he was Defence Secretary.
Nevertheless Mr Portillo's candidature threatens to blur the distinction between forgiveness and condonation. Conservative Central Office is reported to be making considerable efforts on his behalf to exercise tight control over the selection process. Understandably after the Major government's disastrous "back to basics" policy, it shows little "desire to see the morality card played when public opinion no less mysterious in these days of polling than when guidance was sought from sacrificial entrails — seems unconcerned about the presence of declared homosexuals in the Labour government. Its political managers must, therefore, feel a temptation to slacken commitment to traditional morality, particularly when commercial organisations now eam big profits marketing sex.
Who, among the hosts of public affairs programmes, would thunder convincingly against the party for taking the the easy course by adopting the values of "non-judgmental" liberalism? After all, with the exception of the commissars of political correctness, we all abhor prying into private lives nowadays.
I have some friends who; others have informed me, are homosexual. They do not throw this in my face, and I do not think it necessary to quiz them; in part because I suspect that there is much less clandestine sexual activity than the media would have us believe. But in return for my discretion we have an unspoken understanding that they will make no attempt to force me to accept that their tastes are normal, in defiance of my Catholic beliefs and Christianity morality.
The green light given last week to adoptions by homosexuals by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Court, can be expected only to encourage the homosexual lobby to treat Mr Portillo's nomination as a triumph for their cause, irre-. spective of what he says and probably as they revile him as, turncoat. This places a considerable burden on Mr Portillo, whose enigmatic air of smiling caution bespeaks a strong pret'erence for debating on carefully chosen ground. Catholics may regret that he does not seem to practise the faith of his childhood, but they are used to being represented by MPs who are less than perfect.
But many who earlier this year saw Mr Portillo's television programme on Spain will wonder at his failure to hint at his feelings about to the way his father left after Franco's victory in the civil war or to give a clue about what are his thoughts on the European Union.
As a candidate in the next Election Mr Portillo could hope to find many of his personal issues subsumed in the barrage of national debate. As the Tory in the spotlight of an all-important by-election, he would be scrutinised more closely than at any other time of his life.