Could a vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’ gain a head of steam in Brighton Pavilion?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 20th March 2024)

Some people in Brighton Pavilion are considering voting for a surprise, unofficial, candidate. She will not be on the ballot paper, but people have told me that they might write her name at the bottom of the ballot. She is not seeking nomination here and almost certainly will not endorse this move. She might even publicly denounce it. What is more, she will be standing for the Labour Party in the Kent constituency she already represents.

So why are people in Brighton Pavilion considering voting for Rosie Duffield? She won’t be elected here, and any vote for her will be counted as a spoiled ballot and won’t count. ‘Vote Duffield’ was my wife’s proposal. Rosie Duffield is the Labour MP for Canterbury but she was vilified on social media and shunned by Labour’s leadership because of her gender-critical views. She, like many of us, does not believe that anyone can change their sex regardless of how they might choose to live their lives.  

Tom Gray and Siân Berry

I don’t know how many will vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’. It might be just a small handful or it could yet gain a head of steam. Much depends on what the official Labour candidate, Tom Gray, says on the protection of single-sex spaces for those born female, spaces such as hospital wards, changing rooms, toilets, refuges and rape crisis services.

Siân Berry has had a consistent take on this issue. Her view is that transgender women (those born male) should be allowed to use women-only spaces even if they have all their male bits intact (my words, not hers). The Greens have lost support amongst many women and men because they relentlessly prioritise trans rights over women’s sex-based rights, their failure to investigate a Green Party member, the paedophile David Challenor, and their unlawful discrimination against their former deputy leader, Shahrar Ali, who holds gender-critical views. 

Siân has said she will never compromise on trans rights. Tom Gray, on the other hand, seems very reluctant to say what he believes or if he believes anything at all!  He has been challenged on social media to say where he stands, and some constituents have written to him on the issue. I have been told that he has not replied. 

In my first column this year, I wrote about the potential for this to be an election issue in Brighton Pavilion: “Tom will need to say where he stands. The trans rights lobby, including those in his own party, is very vociferous, especially on social media, but they are not significant electorally.” I pointed out that Labour has shifted from its previous support for self-identification which would have allowed people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis and has, instead, recommitted itself to ensuring that some single-sex services and places should be accessed by biological women only. 

I have written to Tom asking for his views on this matter but was referred to the regional press office. I wrote to the named press officer, several times over a few weeks, but have had no response. Are they still captured by the trans-rights activists? Why are they unwilling to repeat the party’s new policy? So I wrote again to Tom, as have others who have contacted me. Tom has not replied to them either. If I was still a Labour member in Brighton Pavilion (I resigned my party membership back in 1994) I would be thoroughly disappointed and disillusioned by Tom’s non-campaign.

Why can’t Tom say that he supports the policy of his Party (even if his leader, Sir Keir Starmer can’t quite bring himself to say “sex-based rights”, preferring to refer to “safe spaces”)? Perhaps he feels that he cannot go against those vociferous activists who hold a different view to the party’s policy, as does the MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell-Moyle. If Tom is running scared of his own Party members, what will he be like when faced with more formidable opponents and vested interests when he is an MP?

A recent opinion poll put Siân Berry at almost 50% with Tom Gray at 37%. He needs something to ignite his rather odd and lacklustre campaign. If he could harness the ‘gender critical’ vote, then the result could be closer than it is currently likely to be. But for now, imagine the scene at the election count as Siân narrowly wins the seat, aided by outraged ‘Duffield’ votes that could otherwise have gone to Labour. It would be too late for regrets.

Labour and the Greens should have known better than to allow Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas anywhere near Russell Brand

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 27th September 2023)

Many years ago when I was working for BHT Sussex, we were approached by a prominent public figure with the offer of a generous donation. The individual was trying to rehabilitate his reputation following a public scandal and was, apparently, offering public donations to a range of charities. Because of our distaste for his prior actions (which were not illegal) and because of the reputational damage that we felt we would have experienced had the donation been accepted, we declined it even though the money would have been very helpful.

As a result of that and other experiences, I was always wary of going down the celebrity route for fundraising. One never knew what skeletons were in closets and many charities have been damaged by the fall from grace of one of their celebrity supporters. Just think of those charities who unknowingly, in some cases knowingly, worked with serial sex offenders like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.

Political parties are equally culpable when aligned with characters whose personal lives and public pronouncements have left much to be desired. The Conservatives shamefully allowed Kenny Everett to make wholly inappropriate ‘jokes’ about bombing Russia and kicking away Michael Foot’s walking stick. Savile was close to Margaret Thatcher and was knighted by her.

In the United States the Clintons and Barack Obama were close to the serial sex offender, Harvey Weinstein. Questions have been asked as to why they were so blind – some suggest wilfully blind – to his true character for so long. Was it his generous support for their election campaigns? Bill Clinton was further damaged by his association with another serial sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Prince Andrew’s reputation, too, is in tatters because of his relationship with Epstein and his inept and ludicrous attempt to justify this friendship.

In the last couple of weeks some politicians must be feeling very uncomfortable about their association with Russell Brand.  Ed Miliband, for example, then leader of the Labour Party, went out of his way to be interviewed by Brand in the run up to the 2015 general election.

Even Caroline Lucas looked delighted in a video on Brand’s social media channel to be endorsed by before the 2015 election.  She looked less comfortable during the preceding interview as Brand invaded her personal space.

By then there were rumours about Brand. A few days after Brand met with Miliband and Lucas, his ex-partner, Jordan Martin, described Brand as a misogynist who had abused her. But even before that, Brand was well-known for his tasteless humour and sexual conduct. For example, in 2008 he made that infamous and totally abusive prank call to Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers) saying that he had had sex with his granddaughter.  Brand was sacked by the BBC afterwards. 

Both Labour and the Greens should have known better than to allow Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas anywhere near Brand. I don’t believe for a moment that Caroline would have gone within a hundred miles of Brand had she been aware of these latest allegations, but her party doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to confronting sexual offenders amongst its ranks. Look at its inaction over Green Party member, David Challenor, who was allowed to act as an election agent, not once but twice, even though the Party knew he had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and sexually abusing a 10-year old. He was subsequently convicted and jailed for 22 years.

Others who should have known better, had promoted Brand over the years, these same years when he had been open in his television and stage ‘acts’ about his abuse and humiliation of women for his personal gratification. In a 2007 radio interview with Savile, Brand said he wanted to meet him and offered to bring along his female assistant, naked. 

But still he was promoted becoming the guest editor of an edition of the New Statesman and, for a number of years, a columnist for The Guardian. George Monbiot, a darling of the British left, nominated Brand as his “hero of the year” in 2014, saying “Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers.”

Maya Angelou said: “When people show you who they are, believe them.” 

One wonders what it is about ‘celebrities’ like Russell Brand that allows principled politicians like Miliband, Lucas and Monbiot to associate themselves with his ilk. While it gives them a momentary boost amongst a certain cohort, it diminishes their politics in the long term. They would have been well-advised to keep their distance and not become “good followers”.

(Note: The final paragraph was omitted from the version that appeared in The Argus)