David Cameron insists Gay voters can trust the Tories. So why don't I believe him?

The late, great comedienne Linda Smith once observed that William Hague’s efforts to deflect racist scandals from the Tory party was akin to Dr. Frankenstein desperately trying to keep the monster locked in the basement. The problem still very definitely exists; the issue is how effectively it can be hidden from public view and prevented from causing too much damage. I have a similar reaction to David Cameron’s recent attempts to endear himself to gay voters.

Cameron granted an interview to Attitude magazine last month, in which he admitted that the Tories had “got it wrong” with Section 28, and was at pains to stress that they were a changed party in 2010. This is undoubtedly a good thing. So why do I struggle to take his apparent change of heart seriously?

The short answer is because he is so patently insincere. Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28 as recently as 2003, long after popular support for it died. In 2008 he voted for a motion that made it more difficult for lesbian couples to obtain IVF treatment by forcing them to name a man who could act as a father figure for the baby. When questioned on this issue by Attitude he defends this decision on the basis that a father figure is essential for the stability of a child growing up. Therefore lesbians (and presumably by extension single mothers) are apparently not valid as a parenting unit. As for his long support for Section 28, he can only assure us that he has “recognised the need for change”.

It gets worse when he is pressed on his party’s incredibly distasteful association with the Law and Justice party of Poland, one of the largest parties in the recently formed European Conservatives & Reformists Group. Presented with records of leading members of this party equating homosexuality with paedophilia and claiming that the “free promotion” of homosexuality would cause the human race to disappear, Cameron’s response is the political equivalent of “Yeah but no but yeah but no”. He repeatedly insists that he does not align himself with parties that have racist or homophobic views. When it is made patently clear that he in fact is aligned with such parties, he repeats this position in the manner of a malfunctioning robot. The best defence he can ultimately come up with is that he is not aligned with a bunch of powerful homophobes for their homophobic qualities. This does not exactly inspire me with confidence.

Tory frontbencher Nick Herbert claims that the existence of himself and numerous other openly gay Tory MPs marks a ‘self evident’ change in Conservative attitude to gay people. I don’t doubt their conviction, but I do doubt that Cameron, a man who consistently voted against gay equality legislation, had a sudden change of heart in his late thirties, just in time for him to become the leader of a party which desperately needs to rebrand itself in order to drag itself back from the 00s doldrums.

The temptation may be to ask how much David Cameron’s sincerity really matters. The fact is that tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise in the UK. Unlike the Britain of the 1980s (or modern-day America), there is little political capital to be made from exploiting fears about homosexuality being ‘promoted’ in schools by villainous paedophiles eager to groom and corrupt impressionable young minds. It is admittedly unlikely that the Tory party will rip off the mask once elected and drag us kicking and screaming back to that time.

However, the importance of having an actively liberal leader in charge as opposed to a begrudgingly tolerant one is hugely significant. Cameron’s voting record on issues like adoption speaks for itself. Would a Tory government have introduced Civil Partnerships? Will a Tory government take a hard line on international gay rights issues such as the recent Anti-Homosexuality bill in Uganda? We may be in a better place now than we were during the Thatcher years but we haven’t yet arrived at a position of total equality, and any government that drags its feet on these issues is not a government that I want to represent me.