NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the more amusing headlines I've seen in a while.

Prospective parliamentary candidate Margot James believes the Conservative Party really has changed its attitude to homosexuality - not just in the Cameroonian salons of fashionable Notting Hill but in the rural heartlands as well.

An "astonishing" number of target seats have picked gay candidates, she told a Stonewall fringe meeting at the party conference in Birmingham.

Ms James, who is standing in Stourbridge, in the West Midlands, argued that the case for kicking out the current government had grown stronger for all voters in the past 12 months - but gay people had a particular reason to vote Tory.

"Gay people are net contributors to public services through their taxes, because very few of them have children.

"I think gay people have got more angst on this issue than anybody else because gay people are paying in, through their taxes and actually using far less of the NHS because they tend not to have families, less of the education system for the same reason and all the more reason to be angry with this government for the waste of their taxes."

She added: "There is so much wrong with this government's policy, gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644851.stm

In a sense, some of the reasons put forward in the article are legitimate, but I find it hard to believe that the party has entirely opened its arms in tolerance. How do we answer, gays of Britain?

An "astonishing" number of target seats have picked gay candidates, she told a Stonewall fringe meeting at the party conference in Birmingham.

Identity politics. Our candidate is like you, so vote for him, policy aside!

You have learned well United Kingdom.

Identity politics. Our candidate is like you, so vote for him, policy aside!

That's not identity politics. Identity politics has always had a category for people who belong to the group, but act against its interests... and its practitioners tend to be especially ardent in opposing such people.

I'm not quite gay and I'm certainly not British, but I have a very hard time trusting any right-wing party on gay rights. Unless maybe if they have a long history of being different from other right-wing parties in that respect, but I don't think that's true for the Conservative Party in the UK.

As for the notion that gays should vote Tory because they (allegedly) benefit less from public services, that's ludicrous. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow: public services might be generally good for society as a whole even if they do not directly benefit gays, and that's an excellent reason to vote to support continuing and expanding them.

Not going to happen, the gay vote is one of the core Lib Dem heartlands (and a significant backbone of the membership/activists).

I'm not quite gay and I'm certainly not British, but I have a very hard time trusting any right-wing party on gay rights. Unless maybe if they have a long history of being different from other right-wing parties in that respect, but I don't think that's true for the Conservative Party in the UK.

I feel like this also. I don't have figures, but I believe the main opposition to the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 was from the Conservatives. I also don't believe they will be supporting adoption for gay people.

As for the notion that gays should vote Tory because they (allegedly) benefit less from public services, that's ludicrous. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow: public services might be generally good for society as a whole even if they do not directly benefit gays, and that's an excellent reason to vote to support continuing and expanding them.

This is also true. I dislike the selfish and non-inclusive attitude expounded by the person in the article, that gays should not contribute to something the heteros will benefit from.

Gays do benefit from having a quality education system in their country. If a gay person runs a company and is looking for good employees for example.

That seems silly. Why would someone have a duty to not pay taxes to contribute to the social system? That's pretty much exclusively the opposite of what duty is.

The Conservative and Unionist Party has a lot of public school boys as members. (LOL).

So I don't think there is a particular fear of gays or gay sex. A lot of them went to Harrow.

Gays do benefit from having a quality education system in their country. If a gay person runs a company and is looking for good employees for example.

I think the article meant they don't use the education system as much as someone with a family. But I do get your point, however, if a person with a family runs a company he benefits from the same reason as the gay person running a company as well as sending his kids off to school.

Not going to happen, the gay vote is one of the core Lib Dem heartlands (and a significant backbone of the membership/activists).

True, I think the Conservatives are fighting a losing battle here.

On the other hand I do think it's an interesting illustration of how far we've come with regard to attitudes towards homosexuality that the Conservatives have two openly gay front-benchers. That would not have happened 10 years ago.

Like they said in the article, I personally hope we get to the point where acceptance of homosexuality becomes so entrenched and a non-issue that gay people can vote only based on politics, not have to engage in a trade-off between their politics and personal rights.

This said, on a personal note, I think we should all keep on voting Lib Dem :D

The Conservative and Unionist Party has a lot of public school boys as members. (LOL).

So I don't think there is a particular fear of gays or gay sex. A lot of them went to Harrow.

Are we talking about the N.Irish Unionist Party, because I wasn't aware of any N.Irish politician going to a Public school. I went to the top school in N.Ireland and we produced one politician, Ian Paisley Jnr.

Well as we are told Cameron will favour traditional heterosexual families with tax breaks ... to do this the rest of us must pay...

So I suggest the leopards don't change their spots expression is relevant here....

lol, nice job stirring a demographic up. love the spin.

i forget, which party introduced civil partnerships in the last few years?


As for the notion that gays should vote Tory because they (allegedly) benefit less from public services, that's ludicrous. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow: public services might be generally good for society as a whole even if they do not directly benefit gays, and that's an excellent reason to vote to support continuing and expanding them.

amen. i should hope most of the gay community in this country would see past this astonishingly self-serving point of view

That loud boom I heard must have been caused by the sudden vast increase in British closet space......

The Conservative and Unionist Party has a lot of public school boys as members. (LOL).

So I don't think there is a particular fear of gays or gay sex. A lot of them went to Harrow.

No, just 'being identified as' and 'admitting to'....

compare the number of labour MPs who have been caught cottaging to the number of Tory MPs caught cottaging.
Now you know why the Tory's want so many more gays in their ranks. At least they're finally being honest to the public about their sexual preferences/deviances.

And apparently they think gays are very selfish people who think only of their paycheck.

True, I think the Conservatives are fighting a losing battle here.

On the other hand I do think it's an interesting illustration of how far we've come with regard to attitudes towards homosexuality that the Conservatives have two openly gay front-benchers. That would not have happened 10 years ago.

Like they said in the article, I personally hope we get to the point where acceptance of homosexuality becomes so entrenched and a non-issue that gay people can vote only based on politics, not have to engage in a trade-off between their politics and personal rights.

This said, on a personal note, I think we should all keep on voting Lib Dem :D


Gays will always be targeted as a group (they are now in Lib Dem GOTV campaigns, because as a demographic they're most likely to vote for us, though it's always amusing to see the euphemisms used on party databases to disguise that fact), but over time it'll become level with groups like single mothers, students, etc.



Are we talking about the N.Irish Unionist Party, because I wasn't aware of any N.Irish politician going to a Public school. I went to the top school in N.Ireland and we produced one politician, Ian Paisley Jnr.
No, the full name of the Tories is Conservative and Unionist party.

lol wut? What next, the BNP campaigning to increase its share of ethnic minority votes? The Tories haven't changed, if they get back in and have to actually make policy they'll be just as narrow-minded and intolerant as before. Just because they've got a smarmy smiling goon as their leader doesn't change the fact they are deed down still the nasty party.

i forget, which party introduced civil partnerships in the last few years?

I am going to have a stab and say the party that has been in power since 1997. Unless some other party has been able to do it. Did the other parties oppose it?

I am going to have a stab and say the party that has been in power since 1997. Unless some other party has been able to do it. Did the other parties oppose it?
I think PM was posting a rhetorical question there, Blou.
Unfortunately he forgot that there are no rhetorical questions on the internet.
Or are there?


To answer your question:
"In the first division on the Bill in the House of Commons, the vote was split broadly down party lines. All Labour Party, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party votes were for, all Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist Party votes were against. The Conservative Party allowed a free vote, and the opposition spokesman Tim Boswell welcomed the Bill — however the vote was split with Conservative MPs like Ann Widdecombe and Andrew Selous opposing the Bill on grounds of religious principle."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004

I think PM was posting a rhetorical question there, Blou.
Unfortunately he forgot that there are no rhetorical questions on the internet.
Or are there?


To answer your question:
"In the first division on the Bill in the House of Commons, the vote was split broadly down party lines. All Labour Party, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party votes were for, all Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist Party votes were against. The Conservative Party allowed a free vote, and the opposition spokesman Tim Boswell welcomed the Bill — however the vote was split with Conservative MPs like Ann Widdecombe and Andrew Selous opposing the Bill on grounds of religious principle."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004

Oh ok, as but I am not to sure if there are rhetorical questions on the Internet is there?

OK interesting and I suppose there will always be some people in the Conservatives who will vote against stuff like this, though if more people were supporting the more liberal members of the party than the faction will increase thus allowing a more centre party. And should more of these get in and with some gay people running as members of the conservatives then it may see some more policy shift away from the hard nosed, those like Widdecombe and Selous who may not like where the party is going may just form a breakaway party.

On a vaguely unrelated issue, when Jeremy Thorpe dies the papers are going to have a field day.

And apparently they think gays are very selfish people who think only of their paycheck.

Well, you can't expect the tories to change that much....

I think the article meant they don't use the education system as much as someone with a family. But I do get your point, however, if a person with a family runs a company he benefits from the same reason as the gay person running a company as well as sending his kids off to school.

The only reason that's the case is because the Tories would vote against allowing them to adopt.

To answer your question:
"The Conservative Party allowed a free vote, and the opposition spokesman Tim Boswell welcomed the Bill — however the vote was split with Conservative MPs like Ann Widdecombe and Andrew Selous opposing the Bill on grounds of religious principle."

Ah yes, Ann Widdecombe. She also opposed the abolition of 'Section 28', which made it illegal for local government to promote homosexuality.

Which is ironic really, because if anything's going to put me off women, it's Ann Widdecombe.

The only reason that's the case is because the Tories would vote against allowing them to adopt.

Is that part of their platform? Does Labor want to allow it? If so have they tried to do anything about it?

And regardless even if they aren't allowed to adpot my point still stands.

Is that part of their platform? Does Labor want to allow it? If so have they tried to do anything about it?

And regardless even if they aren't allowed to adpot my point still stands.

Actually I haven't a clue, most likely if they're anything like the conservatives we're used to over here. I just find it hilarious they think gays should vote for them "It's not like you've got kids!". Comedy gold.

Is that part of their platform? Does Labor want to allow it? If so have they tried to do anything about it?

And regardless even if they aren't allowed to adpot my point still stands.

Labour have allowed it (albeit with some feet dragging here and there) I think the Tories offered a free vote on it (or at least on whether adoption agencies were allowed to refuse people on the grounds that they were gay) and some Lords and backbenchers were certainly against it.

Labour have allowed it (albeit with some feet dragging here and there) I think the Tories offered a free vote on it (or at least on whether adoption agencies were allowed to refuse people on the grounds that they were gay) and some Lords and backbenchers were certainly against it.

Well of course some people were against it, but then it goes back to what I am saying if we are having the gay and more liberal minded conservative members voting for it and these are the ones getting support from gays then the party will see a shift as more and more of these people are selected to represent the party and hence the platform will be changing.

Not going to happen, the gay vote is one of the core Lib Dem heartlands (and a significant backbone of the membership/activists).

And thus the TRUE reason for this is discovered.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/policy.php?id=826&display=comparison

Game, set, match!

I think PM was posting a rhetorical question there, Blou.
Unfortunately he forgot that there are no rhetorical questions on the internet.
Or are there?

that's a good question... i just don't know.









damn, we did it again :( ;)

I'm not quite gay and I'm certainly not British, but I have a very hard time trusting any right-wing party on gay rights. The tories are about as far right as the Democrats...

The tories are about as far right as the Democrats...

I don't trust the Democrats on gay rights, either.

I don't trust the Democrats on gay rights, either.

Then again, they ARE the only party committed to taking appropriate action against manbearpig. Which, quite frankly, dwarfs the gay rights issue in terms of importance.

I don't trust the Democrats on gay rights, either.
Put it this way: the Democrats control both houses of the Alabama legislature, yet they've not missed the opportunity to waive the US Constitution thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act.

No, just 'being identified as' and 'admitting to'....

'splain Michael Portillo then. (Who actually did go to Harrow).

Anyway, my point is that gay people probably have less to fear from the tory pandering to daily mail readers, than from say, the people at Wallsend C&IU, who are as labour as labour can be.

So if you really care about it, you should prbly only vote liberal :p

Britfags.

Britfags.

Do you mean Dunhills?

There are the only Britfags I can think off of the top of my head.