gay uk voters - tory or labour?

D_Relentless Original

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Posts
16,745
Media
4
Likes
252
Points
133
Gender
Male
Actually it's quite selfish to use one's sexuality as a primary consideration.Being gay, for me, would rank about 706th on the list of importance,afterall we live in country populated by other people too.Besides what more is there to be said I'm gay.... and???

I agree with this post fully ^

Personally, David Cameron is all for gay rights when questioned about it, but behind closed doors it seems to be a different matter. He recently stated he supports gay adoption yet voted against it twice. He also apologised for his support of Section 28 but back in 2003 when Labour got rid of the clause he supported a Tory amendment which Stonewall called "section 28 by the back door". He is pro-civil partnerships but again his track record of voting on gay issues is less than favourable. See this interesting chart by The Guardian. However Cameron does seem to be a changed man and has since shown his support of LGBT issues, it's a shame his voting record doesn't match his claims.

Labour have done a lot for gay rights, since they've been in power there have been many alterations to the law including introducing Civil Partnerships, equalling the age of consent, ended the ban on openly gay military personnel, allowed immigration to include same sex partners, allowing gay adoption and introduced homophobia as a hate crime to name just a few.

Liberal Democrats fully support the idea of gay marriage and launched a Marriage Without Borders campaign which would mean civil partnerships would have to be recognised internationally as well as domestically.

Some of us will find the gay rights issue a key choice when voting, others will see it as a non-issue, we are all different but none of us are wrong for selecting different issues as our reason for supporting a political party.

I am still undecided, but I think my vote will possibly be for Lib Dem.

Great post ^

Nope, never once been discriminated against in 45 yrs! QUOTE]

Agree again, i can honestly say i have never been discriminated against, i am not saying that it does not happen,but the same same happens to women, ethnic groups etc.But it never ceases to amaze me how quick the Gay card and discrimination does come out for really silly things,example a couple of guys at work were applying for a job, both lazy people who generaly upset the office with their sexual behaviours of their conquests etc, were offended when women were talking about sex??, but decided if they did not get the job they would say they were being discriminated against??.
Apologies OP for off topic.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I am still undecided, but I think my vote will possibly be for Lib Dem.

The UK electoral system is unfair. It is a brutal system which might (possibly) be justified by the idea that it usually produces a strong government. Failure to realise the inherrent unfairness may encourage some people to vote Lib Dem. Voting Lib Dem will not get Lib Dem policies enacted. It will help Gordon Brown cling to power.

You have a choice at the election:
- Conservative (and Unionist)
- Lab, or de facto support Lab by another vote: Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SDLP, Sinn Fein, BNP.
- If you are in Scotland or Wales SNP and PC are meaningful votes.
 

D_Relentless Original

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Posts
16,745
Media
4
Likes
252
Points
133
Gender
Male
The UK electoral system is unfair. It is a brutal system which might (possibly) be justified by the idea that it usually produces a strong government. Failure to realise the inherrent unfairness may encourage some people to vote Lib Dem. Voting Lib Dem will not get Lib Dem policies enacted. It will help Gordon Brown cling to power.

You have a choice at the election:
- Conservative (and Unionist)
- Lab, or de facto support Lab by another vote: Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SDLP, Sinn Fein, BNP.
- If you are in Scotland or Wales SNP and PC are meaningful votes.

Apologies for my ignorance Jason, how would that work if i voted Lib Dems then? have they got no chance of being voted in?
 
S

superbot

Guest
so superbot i am curious to know the 705 more important issues that will influence your vote.
I'm not being drawn into that arguement,as it is only relevant to me and my agenda.What I am definately NOT is a 'professional poof' there's already way too much 'me-centric' nonsense coming out of the mouths of various groups and it's way too selfish for my beliefs.I live in a fantastic country which affords me a great many things and I certainly don't think I'm hard done by.Too many gay people nurse the idea that they are, almost by definition a victim in some way or another.The 'Daffyd Thomas' mentality for some people is not a joke but a reality,seeing oneself as a victim all the time ain't me, nor ever will be and I certainly won't be asking any perspective candidates 'what's in it for me?' type questions.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Lib Dems have no chance of an overall majority. They have a real chance of holding the balance of power in a hung parliament. In such a circumstance they would demand a Lib Dem Chancellor as condition for a pact. There is no chance whatsoever to the Conservatives agreeing to this. In a hung parliament there are therefore two possibilities:
- Gordon Brown as PM for another 5 years with some poor Lib Dem fall guy trying to deal with the wrecked finances.
- Conservatives as a minority government. This is possible if the Cons are just below an outright win.
The markets would react badly to either of the above.

We have a real risk of disenchanted Labour voters not quite being able to bring themselves to vote Conservative and so voting Lib Dem, effectively voting Gordon Brown back into Downing Street.
 

green carnation

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Posts
426
Media
10
Likes
219
Points
363
Location
Birmingham (England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm not being drawn into that arguement,as it is only relevant to me and my agenda.What I am definately NOT is a 'professional poof' there's already way too much 'me-centric' nonsense coming out of the mouths of various groups and it's way too selfish for my beliefs.I live in a fantastic country which affords me a great many things and I certainly don't think I'm hard done by.Too many gay people nurse the idea that they are, almost by definition a victim in some way or another.The 'Daffyd Thomas' mentality for some people is not a joke but a reality,seeing oneself as a victim all the time ain't me, nor ever will be and I certainly won't be asking any perspective candidates 'what's in it for me?' type questions.

So it's OK for you to have an agenda but no-one else to have an agenda?

As for me, I agree that on the whole we are not hard done by in this country and aren't openly descriminated against (but possibly are behind our backs, for example I went for a job interview and didn't get it because the potential employer didn't want anyone gay working for them-what he didn't know was that I was at university with the one of his employees he made that statement to, and they told me. I would never have known otherwise and could easily float through life thinking I had never been descriminated against).

Anyway, back to the topic. For the record I am voting for a party that stands for things I believe in and I feel will make a positive contribution to the governance of this country. But I wanted to investigate whether this party was supportive of me as a gay person, before I made a final decision. That's all, I dont think that is selfish in a bad way.

I feel too that if you did get drawn into the argument, we would find that you too are doing exactly what you feel is best for you. Afterall how do you know what is best for others? Have you canvassed the entire nation and are voting for all of us? Do you have some inside information on what is the best for everyone in this diverse country? Do you have a hotline to God? Are you God?

Why we vote and how we vote is entirely up to each individual, and indeed whether we do vote or not. I want to make an informed vote which is why I asked the original question, I did not expect for people's agendas to be judged.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Lib Dems have no chance of an overall majority. They have a real chance of holding the balance of power in a hung parliament. In such a circumstance they would demand a Lib Dem Chancellor as condition for a pact. There is no chance whatsoever to the Conservatives agreeing to this. In a hung parliament there are therefore two possibilities:
- Gordon Brown as PM for another 5 years with some poor Lib Dem fall guy trying to deal with the wrecked finances.
- Conservatives as a minority government. This is possible if the Cons are just below an outright win.
The markets would react badly to either of the above.

We have a real risk of disenchanted Labour voters not quite being able to bring themselves to vote Conservative and so voting Lib Dem, effectively voting Gordon Brown back into Downing Street.


I think a number of disenchanted labour people might be quite pleased to have a labour government returned tempered by some real socialism from lib dems. Not that lib dems are all left wing, just that they are likely to be more insistent on certain things, right and left, which the others fear may scare away voters from the opposing political wing. They have a tendency to support things which real people want but which ruling parties feel obliged to oppose (for example, not allowing the secret services to use torture).

Bluntly, the current parliamentary model where we get two parties of professional politicians taking turns to run the country does not work for me. It needs sorting out, and the only way to do this is get in someone different holding the balance of power. The system is designed to give absolute power to a group which gets support from maybe 1/4 of the people and this just does not work nowadays.

It is also more correct to say that 350 labour MPs were chosen to rule the country by the 300,000 members of the labour party, 200 conservative MPs were chosen by the 300,000 members of that party. Who else got any input into the choice? The only people whose votes matter in a constituency are the 500 members of local political paties, who are the ones who choose who will represent you. Talk about being ruled by aristocrats. Lord ashcroft, notorious for keeping all his money untaxed abraod, has a lot more influence over who will be your next MP than you do.
 
Last edited:

Yorkie

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
5,412
Media
79
Likes
4,497
Points
358
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Personally, David Cameron is all for gay rights when questioned about it, but behind closed doors it seems to be a different matter. He recently stated he supports gay adoption yet voted against it twice. He also apologised for his support of Section 28 but back in 2003 when Labour got rid of the clause he supported a Tory amendment which Stonewall called "section 28 by the back door". He is pro-civil partnerships but again his track record of voting on gay issues is less than favourable. See this interesting chart by The Guardian. However Cameron does seem to be a changed man and has since shown his support of LGBT issues, it's a shame his voting record doesn't match his claims.

Labour have done a lot for gay rights, since they've been in power there have been many alterations to the law including introducing Civil Partnerships, equalling the age of consent, ended the ban on openly gay military personnel, allowed immigration to include same sex partners, allowing gay adoption and introduced homophobia as a hate crime to name just a few.

Liberal Democrats fully support the idea of gay marriage and launched a Marriage Without Borders campaign which would mean civil partnerships would have to be recognised internationally as well as domestically.

Some of us will find the gay rights issue a key choice when voting, others will see it as a non-issue, we are all different but none of us are wrong for selecting different issues as our reason for supporting a political party.

I am still undecided, but I think my vote will possibly be for Lib Dem.
Absolutely right! At this point he's prepared to say anything that might persuade voters to elect him.
The Labour Party made homosexuality legal in 1967 and the Conservatives were vociferously opposed to it.
Thatcher's Conservatives passed Section 28 :
28 Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—
“2A Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)

Cameron supported it,Tony Blair axed it.
Even the Daily Mail calls Cameron's apology "extraordinary" and "it is one of a series of apologies Mr Cameron has made for his party's actions in government.
The Scots received one in 2006 for having the poll tax imposed on them a year before it was introduced in England.
The Tory leader's latest remarks, during an appearance at a Gay Pride event, were attacked last night by traditionalists on the Right of his party."

Read more: Cameron apologises to gays for Section 28: Maggie's law to ban promotion of homosexuality in schools was wrong, says Tory leader | Mail Online

Actions speak louder than words and Labour governments are the only ones that have taken action to support homosexuals.
 

D_Helmer Heighballs

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
168
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
to be honest, i hate labour, but im scared of what the conservatives will do, communities will become further segregated because of their policies. my only hope is to vote for the lesser of two evils, and thats labour at the moment. im brown skinned and bisexual. i think the conservatives just arent able to actually accept who lives here today

just my bit
x
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
to be honest, i hate labour, but im scared of what the conservatives will do, communities will become further segregated because of their policies. my only hope is to vote for the lesser of two evils, and thats labour at the moment. im brown skinned and bisexual. i think the conservatives just arent able to actually accept who lives here today

just my bit
x

When John Major was in power we had free university education and generous grants. Now students pay for their places and their living costs, and do this with loans. Labour have destroyed a traditional route for moving into the professional classes.

When John Major was in power there was less poverty and less inequality in wealth distribution. Labour are responsible for the greatest increase in poverty in peacetime ever, and the greatest increase in inequality. They are the only peacetime government to see the whole country get poorer between elections (2005-2010) - some say the only one ever, some the only one since the great depression. Labour have done more to segregate communities and increase poverty than any government ever.

I'm scared stiff at the idea of a Lib-Lab hung parliament. The markets would run against Britain, we would all get poorer before they even did anything, and then there's the certainty that the likes of Lord Mandelson (the brains behind Labour policy) doesn't care one iota for the poor. A vote for Lib-Lab is a kick in the balls for the poor of this country.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
When John Major was in power we had free university education and generous grants. Now students pay for their places and their living costs, and do this with loans. Labour have destroyed a traditional route for moving into the professional classes.
You didnt answer my observation last time: labour did nothing except implement the policies planned by Major, which in turn continued the policy of making students pay established under Thatcher. The conservatives popularised the idea that students should pay.

When John Major was in power there was less poverty and less inequality in wealth distribution. Labour are responsible for the greatest increase in poverty in peacetime ever, and the greatest increase in inequality. They are the only peacetime government to see the whole country get poorer between elections (2005-2010) - some say the only one ever, some the only one since the great depression. Labour have done more to segregate communities and increase poverty than any government ever.
You said that before. Are you still claiming the current labour government caused the world financial crash rather than bankers trying to get rich? Apart from that, all labour has done is follow the trend in government policy established by Thatcher and then Major....Are you saying they got it wrong? You are correct, they are the ones who cut taxes on the wealthy thus allowing high end take home pay to boom and expanding poverty. Is Cameron planning to reverse this and put those taxes back?

I'm scared stiff at the idea of a Lib-Lab hung parliament. The markets would run against Britain, we would all get poorer before they even did anything, and then there's the certainty that the likes of Lord Mandelson (the brains behind Labour policy) doesn't care one iota for the poor. A vote for Lib-Lab is a kick in the balls for the poor of this country.

I begin to sense a pattern here. Are you a conservative supporter or do you work for them? David Steel, liberal politician and one time youngest MP was talking about the days of the lib-lab coalition in the 1970s. He observed that markets rose on the announcement of the coalition. money markets liked the coalition. What makes you think anything has changed?

He was also discussing how well the scottish parliament works on a vote by vote basis, which actually forces the opposition to think about the merits of each vote rather than automatically opposing it because it is from the other side. Dare I say it, people get represented in parliament instead of having their representatives ignored.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
He was also discussing how well the scottish parliament works on a vote by vote basis, which actually forces the opposition to think about the merits of each vote rather than automatically opposing it because it is from the other side.

Would that were the case in all Parliamentary systems!

Is there a possibility of a Con-Lab gov, and if so, would that equate to "do nothing" gov.?

Please don't take this the wrong way, since I am not gay, but I think it's totally cool that one's sexuality, at least for some of the members of the board, is not even a top 10 in terms of reasons to vote for a particular candidate. In this respect, and I am guessing only, it seems the UK is light leagues ahead of the US in terms of gay rights, both politically and culturally.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Is there a possibility of a Con-Lab gov, and if so, would that equate to "do nothing" gov.?
Not a hope in hell. There have been coalitions, but only during WWI and WWII, ....when people thought cooperation was necessary for the national good? The conservative and labour party have a vested interet in claiming that a coalition cannot work, because if people start to realise it can, their monopoly on power, or at least their main justification for it, is gone.

Please don't take this the wrong way, since I am not gay, but I think it's totally cool that one's sexuality, at least for some of the members of the board, is not even a top 10 in terms of reasons to vote for a particular candidate. In this respect, and I am guessing only, it seems the UK is light leagues ahead of the US in terms of gay rights, both politically and culturally.
I thought someone in this thread earlier was claiming anti-gay discrimination in the US was non existent! Broadly id say the situation in the UK has settled nicely under labour where society is more gay-friendly than I have ever experienced. I expect the protest groups are still about but they have not been visible so much since labour changed various laws to be equal for gay or straight. Which is not to say a different government wouldnt change things. The last conservative lot did introduce anti-gay legislation.
 
S

superbot

Guest
How ridiculous that people believe that one party is more pro gay than another.It's precisely this rubbish that reinforces all the same old stereotypes about Labour being for the working man and the Conservatives being for the toffs etc,blah,blah,blah!!! Personally,as gay man I wouldn't vote for the 'so called Socialists' if my life depended on it,but that has nothing to do with my sexuality more to do with the fact that they are little more than a bunch of crooks!! Any one who is takin-in by the pro gay rethoric of either party should realize that all parties make these sort of sugary (patronizing) promises,whether or not they they deliver them is another thing.Besides voting according to your sexuality is the ultimate absurdity!....
 
S

superbot

Guest
How is voting on sexuality the ultimate obsurdity? People can vote on what they want. If gay rights is the key issue in someones life, then why shouldnt they vite for it?
Er,because if you hadn't noticed that legislatively gay people in this country are on a par with straight people and that those who go on and on and on about 'being gay(?)' the entire time need to take their heads out of their arses and realize that they are part of a bigger picture.You don't hear straight people talking about straight politics do you ??!!