When all the Mail on Sunday could come up with as a reaction to Ed Miliband’s election as Labour leader was to point out that he was unmarried and his name wasn’t on the birth certificate of his son, I must admit I was mildly amused. After all, in my little left-wing, progressive, socially liberal bubble of the universe, Mr. Miliband’s choices about how to conduct his private life really should have no impact on his job performance as leader of the opposition or even as Prime Minister.
Yet, by Tuesday that nasty persistent whining from the right on the subject still hadn’t gone away. Richard Littlejohn, that paragon of right-wing family values, and Tim Montgomerie have both weighed into the conversation yesterday, trying desperately to sabotage the political debate and keep the already annoying Miliband family soap opera on the front pages while the Labour party conference fades into the background.
And yet, the trick that Messrs Littlejohn and Montgomerie are missing is that the personal is political – something feminists have known for decades. So let’s look at how Mr. Miliband’s family status matters, and what the right’s focus on it really tells us about the kind of society these people envision for us.
Richard Littlejohn finds it ironic that while in “fashionable left-wing circles” marriage between a man and a woman is seen as something reactionary and old-fashioned, civil partnerships for same-sex couples are celebrated. If, he asks, Mr. Miliband and Ms Thornton intend to stay together for the rest of their lives, then why not get married. There is a tangled mess of underlying assumptions behind these comments.
For a start, we don’t know – and frankly shouldn’t care – whether Ed Miliband and Justine Thornton intend to stay together for the rest of their lives. Yes, they have been together for five years, and they have a child together, with a second one on the way. Yet, the rest of someone’s life can be a very long time, and not just because futurologists predict that the first person to live to 1000 years old could be in their fifties today. People change, their goals and outlook on life change, and even the children grow up. A modicum of awarenss of the long term is the minimum I expect from my political leaders, and Mr Miliband for me is showing that by not binding himself in an extremely restrictive legal way to another person.
There is also a certain presumption in all of this commentary that Ed Miliband is the only person in the relationship who has a say over whether they get married, or whose name is on the birth certificate. The right is trying to treat Ms. Thornton here as a “trophy wife” – the same way the press dealt with Sarah Brown (Anyone remember her toes?) and “Sam Cam” whose greatest contribution to anything was to make us feel that her husband was a real man by being visibly pregnant during the election campaign. It is time for commentators like Mr. Littlejohn to realise that women – even politicians’ partners – are human beings, that they have agency and free will of their own.
Finally, Mr. Littlejohn seems to be starting from the assumption that “one size fits all” when it comes to relationships: if you like gay “marriage” then you should like straight marriage; if you have children you should be married. It’s a terribly restrictive view of human relationships, and just because the traditional “one man, one woman, two kids” model may have worked out for him doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone else. Why is it always the right – the proponents of a small state and the worshippers of market-enabled choice – who want to regulate human relationships, who want to deny us the basic rights of choice in the most personal areas of our lives? Is it so difficult to comprehend that context matters; that a person’s experience and outlook on life matters; that two people (and sometimes three, or four – I know it’s a shock!) can have an adult covnersation about how to run their own lives, and make their own decisions, without the state or the Daily Mail having a say in it?
Richard Littlejohn shows grave concern for the kind of role model Ed Miliband, in his new role as leader of the opposition, will be for the country. Here is the kind of role model that he is to me:
He is clearly a man of passion – someone who cares deeply about the biggest social and political problems of our times. And yes, perhaps he prioritised a climate change conference over getting married, or getting his name on a piece of paper – this for me makes him a man who can see the bigger picture. Again, this should be a minimum requirement for our political leaders.
I am making my own assumptions here, but I suspect Ms. Thornton would have had a strong voice when it came to the couple’s decision on how to conduct their relationship. This to me shows that Mr. Miliband is the kind of man who can respect his partner, have a mature and adult conversation about their relationship, and reach an agreement, even if that may not be to his political advantage. In a culture where women are routinely treated as objects, Mr. Miliband is brave to show us a different way.
Of course, Ed Miliband’s success in the leadership election also sends a strong message that “people like him” – people who have children out of wedlock, and whose name isn’t on those children’s birth certificate – can be successful, can be deemed worthy of maybe one day even becoming Prime Minister. That is a very powerful message, as it contradicts the constant pressure for conformity we face from the likes of Mr. Littlejohn.
I do not support the Labour party, but I would like to hear Ed Miliband’s political vision, not see his message drowned out by a media-generated strom in a teacup over issues which stopped being issues back in the 1980s.