… liberal-lefty unmarried couples who “have to” get married to avoid inheritance tax. Remarkably un-self-aware article in the Observer here.

Oh, and this irritated me too:

… the UK is alone in insisting that this punitive tax can only be avoided if two partners marry - unless, as it happens, they happen to be of the same sex, in which case they are able to demand a civil partnership ceremony that declares them as good as man and wife and thus immune to the tax.
It’s heterosexuals who are forced to surrender their freedom in order to save their children the necessity of paying the tax at their death.
In France, and in a number of US states, the equivalent of a civil partnership is granted to heterosexuals. So the government’s attitude is reminiscent, in its grim Victorian dictates, of the worst discrimination against what used to be known as living in sin.

Er, nope. Civil partnership = marriage, in every meaningful sense. Would have been a lot simpler if they’d just called it that, to be honest, but they didn’t. So excuse me for not wanting straight couples to be able to get civil partnerships until gays can get married, and excuse me for thinking that neither cause is particularly urgent at the moment, no matter what those who write for the Observer think. I think I last pointed this one out a few years ago.

Talking of civil partnerships, there was a lovely moment today. It won’t surprise you to know that I’ve been out tapping on lots of doors ahead of the local elections in Oxford. Earlier I spoke to a woman who had a problem which needed sorting out (I’m being deliberately vague) so I popped into her lounge to take down the details, out of the cold. Her wall was covered in photos of her family - there must have been forty of them, and when I commented on them, she proudly said that she was very careful to make sure that she had all her sons and daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren were up there, though the newest great-grandson won’t arrive until later this summer so he’s not up yet. She pointed out her own children, including one photo of two women, with a cutting from the paper stuck into the frame. “That’s my daughter and her girlfriend on their wedding day - she’s gay, so they had one of those civil unions. What a lovely day - here’s the ad me and her Dad put in the Oxford Mail for them.” And we returned to talking about parking, and all the other things people might talk to a party political canvasser about. Marvellous.

Imprint

Yesterday, Stonewall published a report, Serves you right, based on a survey on the experiences of lesbian and gay people. Apparently it was the first statistically-significant survey of its kind, surveying 1658 people of YouGov’s panel of 115,000. (I was one of those surveyed, by the way. YouGov, here’s a hint for free - we have civil partnerships now, we can’t get sacked for being gay, heck, we can even serve in the army, so you really don’t need to preface the question with “Some people might think the following questions to be of a personal nature”. We’re grown-ups, and we can cope with you just asking which team we bat for).

Anyway, even if the survey was the first of its kind, it was really rather bland, to be honest. Most people still know that the Tories don’t really feel very comfortable with the gays (Boris gave some rather wonderful proof of that the other day). The extent of homophobic bullying is still depressing. Discrimination, prejudice and the perception of it still deter lesbian and gay people from using public services and getting involved in their communities - particularly anything where lesbian and gay people might come into contact with children.

The bit that particularly interested me was about the gays and politics. Apparently between 60 and 70 per cent of gays think they’d face barriers to selection as a Labour parliamentary candidate or council candidate, and about ninety per cent for the Tories.

My experience is that it’s not been an issue for local party members, people in my ward, or councillor colleagues of all parties or staff of the council; it’s been an issue for commenters to this blog (notably here) and for the anonymous writer of the political column in the Oxford Mail, who is wont to insert the description “lefty lesbian” in front of my name, as if I were some early-eighties GLC throwback (though s/he’s got a bit better recently). What I couldn’t do is put up with the sheer homophobia Conservative wannabe-MP Iain Dale experiences in any comments thread on his blog which even touches lightly on homosexuality. And I recognise that my experience, in a liberal-minded city with a youngish Labour group and an active local party is probably not the norm.

Entertaining saga in the Guardian this week. First, the report that Jodie Foster finally came out, thanking her female partner at an awards ceremony. Then, the inevitable letter, bemoaning that this was an action worthy of mention, and stating, falsely in my experience, that straight people do not assume everyone else is heterosexual. Finally, the Guardian-reading (dare I say sensibly-shod?) lesbian contingent rounded on the naysayer in Saturday’s Guardian. Fantastic fun. And serious too - forgive me for being so unhip as to be pleased.

No politician should expect gratitude for what they’ve done. And that’s never more true than with the gay community, happy to bank ten years of advances in gay rights, and preferring Cameron to Brown, according to this survey. I’ve spent part of my day watching the rerun of the 97 election on BBC Parliament, whilst getting my household chores done; as the camera cut to the count in Exeter, I was shocked by the vile homophobia that gay candidates had to face a decade ago from Tory MPs. A few years ago, lesbian and gay people were outside Parliament, campaigning in vain against bigoted Tory laws; in 2007, religiously-motivated homophobes are out there in Parliament Square, shouting in vain, as we’re on the inside getting new rights and new protection courtesy of a Labour government. How things change, and how quickly people forget.

Unfortunately, the front cover of today’s Independent on Sunday comes as no surprise. I bumped into some LCLGR comrades last week, and they mentioned that the issue most likely to derail full implementation of anti-discrimination law for lesbian and gay people in the provision of goods, facilities and services was forcing Catholic adoption agencies to take gay couples onto their books.

The plan was for the issue to be put to bed by ministers early last week, but as the Sindy reports, that’s clearly not happened. It’s odd to say it, but thank goodness for the rearguard action being fought by Alan Johnson amongst others. I wrote to Ms Kelly early last week about this - am furious that I even had to do that much. I’m sure Ruth Kelly is a competent minister, but for heaven’s sake, will someone take the equality brief off her? I just don’t trust her on women’s equality, or lesbian and gay equality, at all anymore. It’s an issue that’s so easy to get right; why is she making such a meal of it?

At Labour conference 2005, the Labour campaign for lesbian and gay rights pulled off a coup in getting the government to agree to put forward a law prohibiting discrimination against lesbian and gay people in the provision of goods and services. Following the introduction of civil partnerships and the prohibiting of discrimination at work, it’s a nonsense that a bank couldn’t sack someone for being gay, but could refuse them a mortgage for no other reason; that a couple have the right to get married, but the venue of their choice could turn round and refuse to let them use it. I feel particularly proud of this accomplishment as Jo was the one who went through rounds of arduous negotiations with ministers at conference on behalf of LCLGR, and gave the proposing speech.

So I’m angry that following the transfer of responsibility for equalities issues to a notoriously-socially-conservative Catholic minister, having a full law that prohibits all discrimination, no matter how you justify it, is apparently in jeopardy again.

In the comments below:

Ms Bance fails to grasp that promoting lesbianism and alternative lifestyles, noble as it is, is not going to enthuse the majority of working class former or current Labour voters to carry on voting for us or to push leafelts through doors etc. A great many loyal labour people, especially from the older generations, would not identify one iota with the kind of guardian trendy stuff Ms Bance spouts. In order to win a fourth term we need to address their concerns and not isolate them with guardian inspired cack.

I get quite a lot of homophobic comments on this blog, most of them incredulous that my area could have elected a lesbian - not a Labour person, or a woman, or a young person, but a lesbian. Apparently living with a woman, talking about the issues that matter to me and occasionally mentioning the shared episodes of our life on my blog is “promoting lesbianism and alternative lifestyles”. (Talking of which, Wednesday was the anniversary of the day four years ago that Jo and I got together. We had steak and pepper sauce in front of the telly to celebrate. Does anyone feel a twinge of envy? Want to come and join the lesbian fold? After all, we recruit… )

Quite why the people of Rose Hill are supposed to care about who I sleep with, I don’t know. Lots of them know Jo, who comes out leafletting and canvassing and is my personal driver and photographer; no-one has ever had a problem with us - not the working-class Labour activist couple in their eighties, nor the community centre bar regulars.

So, I thought I’d blog my week for you - unexpurgated, complete with all the vegan-food-and-sandals-101 classes and the mentoring sessions with baby dykes, just so you can get the reality of being a Guardian-cack councillor.

Sunday - Lots of paper, need a filing cabinet. Pick up unwanted filing cabinet from a friend. Labour colleagues come over and we discuss tomorrow’s first meeting of Lib Dem-dominated executive.

Monday - 8.30am to the town hall for the executive meeting. It’s the first one since the election, at which we moved from minority administration to opposition to a minority Lib Dem administration. I’m one of two Labour members without portfolio, so our job is to represent the views of Labour voters and the group. Primarily that means arguing for more housing and better waste collection and recycling in Oxford, all of which the Lib Dems are apparently reluctant to do. There’s also a review of community grants on the agenda, and with diffculty I resist the temptation to argue for funding for a three storey building to house lesbian mothers’ self-insemination workshops. The meeting goes on until about one o’clock, I have lunch with the other Labour member and go to my real, paying, job. Monday is a rare night off, so Jo and I promote lesbian lifestyles by going to the supermarket and blatently buying groceries.

Tuesday - At 8.30am, I’m at the city council, meeting the community centres team about the redevelopment of the Rose Hill Community Centre. It’s an exciting project and could become a real hub for a community with meagre facilities nearby. The money’s a problem, but when’s it not? I try to work in how important it is that there is space for gay men’s dancing lessons in the building, but we run out of time. The meeting overruns, and I’m late for the real, paying, job. To make up my hours, I’m at my desk until 7.30pm, and then go to watch the England match with friends. Two constituents call during the day with housing issues. I spend time taking details from them and email the relevant staff members. I’m still chasing two bits of casework from last week, and one from the week before. The new queries prompt me to follow up on them too.

Wednesday - A full day in the office, followed by a meeting with the new learning co-ordinator for our estate. She’s got loads of great ideas, and is really impressive. In the one lesbian moment of the week, she assumes that me and male co-councillor Ed are a couple. We gently disabuse her amid much shared laughter. Get home at eight-ish after last-minute dash to buy steak for beloved. BT have finally installed new landline, so we have an answerphone and my mobile number can finally come off the council website. Huzzah!

Thursday - Another glorious full day in the office of the organisation that pays my salary. Leave at 7.15pm and to Labour group until 9pm. It’s my first meeting of full council next week, and despite the temptation to ask question about changing the city badge to the gay pride flag, Labour group agree that I will ask a question about getting a dispersal order on Rose Hill to help us deal with the problems of young people intimidating everyone at the shops.

Friday - 8am with the neighbourhood renewal team to get an update on the progress of the redevelopment of the council-owned prefab houses on Rose Hill. The first ones have been demolished, but the scheme is six months behind schedule. Nothing is more important in our area than getting these buildings down and the new housing built; most of the Orlits (as they are called) are empty and boarded up, and are a magnet for trouble; the remaining residents are desperate to move. As it was only an update meeting, I didn’t raise the issue of the segregated sheltered block for elderly separatist lesbians that we so sorely need, but rest assured, I’ll make sure it’s in the final plans.

At 10am, I’m at the youth centre on Rose Hill at a meeting of our brand new neighbourhood action group, which is managing the rollout of neighbourhood policing on our estate. It’s a great meeting, with a clear shared priority list: stopping antisocial behaviour on the estate, dealing with the gangs of young people, and getting to grips with the drugs problem. We get an action plan, and I’m hopeful that the police have taken residents’ concerns on board. It’s pretty infuriating that the county council don’t seem to understand that the youth services that we’ve got on the estate, while run by great committed workers, just don’t have the capacity to meet the needs of young people. So once again the city council will plug the gap, and the Tories on the county can find yet another rural bus route to subsidise instead of supporting really deprived young people and communities. As I come out of the meeting, a resident approaches with a housing problem, so Ed and I spend some time with her. I’m back at my desk for half-past one, and try to focus on work - difficult.

At four-thirty, Ed and I are supporting a resident at a meeting with the city council’s building control team. We’re plagued with unscrupulous developers in our area, so whilst the technical details are sometimes obscure, it’s worth it. By six it’s over, and Ed and I sit down for a debrief on the week and catch-up on the casework. A while later, we’re joined by Jo and get some dinner.

Saturday - It’s time to catch-up on the paperwork and emails. There’s over 100 council emails in my inbox, and I’ve just been firefighting them all week. Now I should get a chance to answer some and chase others, as well as followup on the casework, queries and letters that have been arriving all week.

So, that’s my week. What have you learned about lesbian councillors? Well, that this one goes to the supermarket, watches the football, eats dinner with her partner, helps constituents and talks about community centres and crime and young people and housing and education and building control in her area. Hopefully you’ve also learned that being a member of a particular section of the community doesn’t mean that I put that community first to the detriment of all others. If you’re surprised by that, you shouldn’t be, and if you don’t know which bits of this week didn’t actually happen, then you’re a numpty.

Something’s been bugging me over the last few days of discussion about giving unmarried couples more rights as a couple, and it needs clearing up.

What’s wrong with this passage, written by a heterosexual unmarried journalist in today’s Guardian?

The extension of legal rights to [my girlfriend] and me is inevitable, given that they have already been granted by means of civil partnerships to the likes of my gay friends

It’s this: the assumption that the only couples who now have no legal status vis-a-vis one another are unmarried woman-man couples, because that thing called civil partnership has sorted it out for the gays. Er, no. Couples that have no legal status to one another are those who have not gone through a state-approved ceremony (called “marriage” if you’re a woman-man couple, and “civil partnership” if you’re a woman-woman or man-man couple). Changing the law to recognise long-term partnerships outside marriage or civil partnership would affect both straight and gay couples. The introduction of civil partnerships last December didn’t give any new rights to gay couples *unless they chose to take them up by signing the register*. Small point, but one that’s been bugging me.

In relation to the broader issue, it makes sense to me to extend some rights to cohabiting couples who aren’t married or civilly-partnered. Given that those who are screwed over by the current lack of rights are (in the main) women whose relationships with their male partners break up, does anyone else think it ironic that where once feminists resisted marriage as an institution which oppressed women, now it is the lack of that institution which does over women?

Does the suggestion that a footballer might be gay “cause a reasonable person to think worse of him”? (I have no law, so that’s from Wikipedia)

So says Stonewall, in a study published today about representations of lesbian and gay people on the BBC. They found:

Even when they feature on BBC One and BBC Two, gay lives are five times more likely to be portrayed negatively than positively
Lesbians hardly feature in BBC programming at all
More than 50 per cent of all references to gay people on the BBC were as jokes
Gay people living in stable relationships with partners and families are invisible on the BBC - most of the images used are clichés and stereotypes
Lesbian and gay issues are rarely tackled or even mentioned in factual programmes
Gay sexuality is frequently used as an insult, with almost no evidence of the BBC challenging homophobia when it arises

I’m not sure that I pay my licence fee primarily to see my lifestyle reflected on telly, but it would be nice if the BBC didn’t perpetuate negative stereotypes. I’d also like to see a sorted lesbian woman on a prime time drama - perhaps, to fulfill her required quotient of misery, she could have money issues or something? There are, after all, some of us lesbians for whom struggling with our sexuality is not the biggest issue in our lives.