gay uk voters - tory or labour?

[phk]

For me, the most important issue is Social equality in general, not just for gay people, but also for women, ethnic minorities and disabled people. I get REALLY REALLY angry when I see people (not here obviously) writing comments like "go home paki" or "go bomb somewhere else" cos they're SO small minded and pathetic. When will people see that everybody is the same regardless of gender, race, religion or sexuality? It really isn't a hard concept to grasp!

All in all though .. either Labour or the Lib Dems. Naturally i'd prefer to vote Labour however in my constituency Labour don't stand a hope in hell in winning so my vote on them would be entirely wasted, and even if the realistically the Lib Dems would never win here either, if I vote for them it's still more effective.

So yeah, but please not the Conservatives :tongue:

 

[dandelion]

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 ??!!

I dont think the question was whether people go on and on about being gay on the street, or in the pub, but whether it matters when you vote. I dont generally go on about politics, because people arent interested, but that does not mean I forget about it when I vote.

Now straight politics, whats that about? Maybe free schools for straight couples children? Now, theoretically a gay couple might adopt some children, but what about those adoption agencies who refuse to even speak to them? Obviously also all that free medecine for those children growing up before they are old enough to pay their own way. The child benefit and all sorts of other financial benefits. marriage subsidies. State child car payments?

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Not being gay I have no say in this!? Always laugh at party politics. Anyone who thinks Brown and his gangsters are socialists shouldn't be allowed a vote by virtue of their ignorance. You will get the government you deserve, and the media will manipulate you into voting for the establishment always. Look at UK today, thwe whorehouse and biggest uncontrolled casino in the world. Time to drop the great in GB.

 

[Jason]

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.?
QUOTE]

A hung parliament would almost certainly be Lab+Lib with Gordon Brown as PM. Hard to see how Con could work with Lib.

It is technically possible to see Con+DUP, but DUP are only likely to have 2 or 3 MPs, so a real knife-edge situation. It is possible for SNP and PC to hold the balance, but hard to see who could work with them. We could have a minority government, but in this case Gordon Brown would have first shot at governing (as incumbent PM) even if his party came second. Probably we would be looking at another election in the autumn.

There is an oft repeated view that a hung parliament works just fine in Scotland and therefore would in the UK. This is misleading. The Scottish parliament has limited authority and represents a community smaller in population than London. What works in such a circumstance does not scale up to the UK parliament. Indeed the UK system copes badly with hung parliaments as we have a confrontational political style - and while it may well be that this needs to be changed, a hung parliament is not the mechanism.

I see tonight that "The Sun" is backing the Conservatives, and as they have got it right for the last few elections I'm rather hoping that we are looking at a straightforward Conservative victory. It would be a whole lot better than a hung parliament.

 

[green carnation]

if only someone in parliament was hung i would definately then know who to vote for! Almost as vacuous as voting with a thought of ones sexuality isnt it superbot?
Superbot if you cant accept that to some people it is important to think about gay people really being part of the whole community and not just the marginalised and excluded and so called gay community- then go post elsewhere. The debate is on whether one party is more supportive of us than the other, not what issues we each vote on. Get over it- you cant control peoples votes. And of course there are differences in ideologies of political parties.
And very good point about our taxes funding all sorts of straight activities, of which i have no problem with but maybe a little more balance is required, or not? Tax breaks for childless people-now that would surely be a vote catcher!

..
.

 

[superbot]

if only someone in parliament was hung i would definately then know who to vote for! Almost as vacuous as voting with a thought of ones sexuality isnt it superbot?
Superbot if you cant accept that to some people it is important to think about gay people really being part of the whole community and not just the marginalised and excluded and so called gay community- then go post elsewhere. The debate is on whether one party is more supportive of us than the other, not what issues we each vote on. Get over it- you cant control peoples votes. And of course there are differences in ideologies of political parties.
And very good point about our taxes funding all sorts of straight activities, of which i have no problem with but maybe a little more balance is required, or not? Tax breaks for childless people-now that would surely be a vote catcher!

..
.

Totally ABSURD,and a classic example of the 'ME' society we live in today.Maybe you should get a job with that professional poof Tatchell or maybe Daffyd Thomas.I shall not be voting for 'gay issues' cos there are none.As for gay people being marginalized,WHERE??? This is Great Britain not Zimbabwe!! Get over yourself.....P.s I shall post where I chose thanks!

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Read my lips: it isn't what politicians say it is what politicians do. Maybe I am being obtuse but I think there are more pressing issues in need of legislative attention than homosexuality. Since when did party politics depend on sexual orientation.

 

[Jason]

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.

This isn't correct. At the time when the Conservatives left office there were zero fees for UK students and grants which covered living costs.

It is Labour who have put in place fees and reduced grants to next to nothing. They have to take 100% responsibility for this. They have had a lot of years in power with big majorities - this is their policy.

What the Conservatives would have done is set out in their manifesto for 1997. They had closed the university/polytechnic binary divide (basically in place 1992). The old system had seen universities nationally funded and polys locally funded. The Conservatives wanted a mix of national and local funding for all universities. They also wanted a new group of small universities - basically liberal arts and business colleges - with one in every town that did not have a uni. They didn't have the chance to implement these policies. Right now we would have a different look to unis had Conservatives been in power, and one a jolly sight better than the massive debt most students now run up.

Similarly the Conservatives would have handled the recession differently. Labour instincts are for big government and spending; Conservatives the opposite. A Conservative government over the last 13 years would have had reserves to cushion a downturn. Our economy should have performed like Germany or France or Norway - not a deep recession and the last one to come out. Gordon Brown didn't create the world recssion, but he created a situation where the UK was ill-equipped to cope. He was forced to take drastic steps (quantitative easing in particular) that are going to hit us hard.

The might have beens of history are always difficult - but a UK under the Conservatives would surely be richer, have a more cohesive society and less poverty, and generally be a nicr place than the UK that Labour has created. Labour has put through policies (like the student fees) which make Maggie Thatcher look like a cuddly left-winger. It has politicians like Lord Voldemort, eh Mandelson, who are somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun. Labour aren't socialist; they are just on a power junket.

 

[dandelion]

This isn't correct. At the time when the Conservatives left office there were zero fees for UK students and grants which covered living costs.

Isnt it curious how memory plays tricks, but I think I have it right. I googled and what did I find? Imperial College. IC Reporter, A HISTORY OF STUDENT FUNDING

Says it is is an article from the imperial college staff newspaper written in 1995. Seem to recall i knew Dr. Gareth Jones who wrote it, who had something to do with student issues. So 2 years before Blair and labour came to power in 1997, he wrote,

''the financial pressures on students have grown; student grants have long since stopped trying to keep pace with the cost of living and have been replaced with a mixed grant and loan system. The fall in student grants is a direct consequence of the very large increase in student numbers coupled with the Government’s desire to contain expenditure. Even ministers might now realise that a Ford Fiesta might be a better metaphor [rather than a Rolls-Royce]. One MP, Don Foster, has just completed a survey of student stress and suicide and has concluded that the increasing level of poverty amongst students lies behind the increased stress levels reported by university counselling services. ''

so in 1995 the conservative cuts in student grants were causing suicides.

What the Conservatives would have done is set out in their manifesto for 1997.

oh those politician death bed repentences!

Similarly the Conservatives would have handled the recession differently.

How? Either they would have propped up the banks and borrowed to maintain spending just as labour have, or we would now be in the middle of the biggest resession in UK history. House prices would have fallen like stones with massive morgage defaults.

A Conservative government over the last 13 years would have had reserves to cushion a downturn.

Official conservative policy was to cut taxes. On this basis there would be no 'cushion' of spare cash. More realistically, the conservatives would have spent virtually the same as labour did, because both parties are chasing the same electors and know how to bribe them.

Our economy should have performed like Germany or France or Norway

if it wasnt so dependant on banking and had replaced this with manufacturing then it probably would. Are you seriously telling me the conservatives would have cracked down on the financial sector so as to reduce it as a proportion of the economy?

He was forced to take drastic steps (quantitative easing in particular) that are going to hit us hard.

You mean quietly writing off as much of the government debt as he could while the going was good, and a modicum of inflationary pressure was even desireable to counteract the risk of a deflationary spiral? So far this has been finessed beautifully.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

If students are so poor why do they have so much spare cash to spend on sleazy Spring breaks in Spain - any city centre in UK witnesses appalling behaviour from the local student population at weekends. Or is it all mummy and daddy's pocket money. The great British public have no sympathy for students. I enjoyed a university education by scholarship but I believe it is my duty to provide free education for those who can't afford it; if that means taxes so be it. Somehow I get the impression both Labour and Tory studensts when the time comes will deny the poor an education in favour of their pampered party offspring.

 

[Bbucko]

Though I'm strictly a tourist when it comes to British politics, it seems to me that when the founder of GLBTory says this, then there is a genuine problem for the GLBT community's abilities to support conservative candidates:

"I feel guilty because as a gay woman affected by LGBT rights I am on record saying you should vote Conservative, and I want to reverse that," she said. "I want to go on record to say don't vote Conservative. I'd go as far to say that I'll vote Labour at this general election." The endorsement for Labour from Ms Beaumont-Bott, 20, will be an embarrassment for the Tories. She had been picked out as one of the faces of Mr Cameron's young, modern Conservatives for her work in promoting gay rights within the party [...]


"It's been in my head for a while to speak out, but the Chris Grayling issue has made me realise that a year-and-a-half ago, I was someone who was standing up and telling gay people that they should vote for Mr Cameron. But I became disillusioned after meeting one too many people in that party who were not like what the leader was saying the party was about. If you make a comment like [those made by Mr Grayling], you should be out. This isn't a question of party lines – it is disgusting. I don't like doing this to Mr Cameron. I like him, but the insides of his party are not what the people are led to believe."

 

[Bbucko]

This also gave me pause:

David Cameron's putative Home Secretary has just announced that he thinks B&Bs – places open for hire to the public – should, in practice, be legally permitted to put up signs saying "No Gays". How is this different to turning away black people or disabled people or Jewish people – except that Cameron would sack Grayling if he supported discrimination against them?


Meanwhile, Cameron has given two interviews to the gay press – and both have led him to tell shocking untruths, or demand the interview be stopped.

Homophobia is "abhorrent", but discrimination in lodging accommodation is OK? Really? Read the entire linked post (it's short, I promise). But it does seem that gay Brits who believe in a new, open and accepting Conservative/Labor party are engaging in an exercise in so much mental masturbation.

 

[Jason]

MPs make many decisions on ethical issues. Things like abortion and euthanasia and animal experimentation and fox hunting and anti-smoking legislation. Most of them find most of these decisions difficult. I rather hope they do find them difficult - if they don't they are not thinking about them enough.

The issues around gay equality are lively ones in the UK. Politicians - including Grayling - are leading the way. They have passed anti-discrimination legislation. This is Grayling's track record. He has voted for policies which he knows are right. But this doesn't stop his realisation of the deep unease that many people in the country do feel - nor does it stop any unease he himself may (wrongly) feel.

UK B&B is usually a house where the owner and family live and rent out one to half a dozen rooms. Staying in a B&B is often quite a personal experience without the sort of privacy you would find in an hotel. Many B&Bs have rooms which are not ensuite for example. Many have thin walls. There will be people who run B&Bs who have religious objections to people engaging in gay sex. The law does not support their objections - the law is that if they offer rooms for rent they must accept people having gay sex in their home, and many will be very unhappy about this. Grayling has voted for the laws which give equality to gay people, but he is also aware of this difficult area. We have a case where the law is running ahead of much popular opinion.

His remarks were off camera - basically it was entrapment. They are just a few sentences. He makes a point off camera which he wouldn't have made on camera because in our soundbite age it is hard to convey nuanced messages. But in a way his off camera remarks illustrate the complexity of the issue. He does believe the law is right (and he voted for it) but he also believes that society hasn't caught up with it, that it will cause problems, that in this sense it is wrong. And there are real problems with forcing laws on people that a minority object to strongly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do just this if it is right, but we have to be aware of the problems also.

 

[dandelion]

MPs make many decisions on ethical issues. Things like abortion and euthanasia and animal experimentation and fox hunting and anti-smoking legislation. Most of them find most of these decisions difficult.

Do they? My impression is that very many politicians have a default position which is to ban everything. So they want to take away a womans right not to be used against her will as someone elses life support machine, force people to live in misery and suffering, stop them riding about in the countryside, stop them enjoying themselves with a puff of something. The only one of those examples which ought to be an issue is animal experimentation, where a human is inflicting suffering on something else. Even then nothing has an innate right to live.

Politicians need to understand the best thing they can do is make fewer laws.

The issues around gay equality are lively ones in the UK. Politicians - including Grayling - are leading the way. They have passed anti-discrimination legislation.

Its funny, I didnt use to sound so anti-conservative until I started arguing about this here. Labour does plenty of objectionable things too. But I think we already established that its labour who have always been the party passing pro-gay rights legislation.

But this doesn't stop his realisation of the deep unease that many people in the country do feel - nor does it stop any unease he himself may (wrongly) feel.

Its a horrible truth that many anti-gay people turn out to be repressed homosexuals who are basically legislating to control what they dont like in themselves. Very silly.

We have a case where the law is running ahead of much popular opinion.

well in fact there was a spate of B&B owners being interviewed who said they were more than happy to have the customers, any customers. Popular opinion is that this is not an issue. On the other hand, amongst typical conservative supporters it may be.

His remarks were off camera - basically it was entrapment.

Politicians should never, ever, be allowed to keep secret what they really believe. That is electoral fraud and there ought to be a law against it!

And there are real problems with forcing laws on people that a minority object to strongly.

Like locking up gays for getting on with it? How many people really did get taken to court and/or sent to jail during the last conservative government because they broke the laws labour repealed? Does that trump the inconvenience of a paying guest having sex in your bedroom?

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

His remarks were off camera - basically it was entrapment. They are just a few sentences. He makes a point off camera which he wouldn't have made on camera because in our soundbite age it is hard to convey nuanced messages. But in a way his off camera remarks illustrate the complexity of the issue. He does believe the law is right (and he voted for it) but he also believes that society hasn't caught up with it, that it will cause problems, that in this sense it is wrong. And there are real problems with forcing laws on people that a minority object to strongly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do just this if it is right, but we have to be aware of the problems also.

...But in a way, it proves he is homophobic, or atleast, backward. If he voted for one thing, and believes the other, then something is wrong.

It wasnt entrapment, it was showing him for exactly what he is.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

If I had the choice I'd vote for an honest candidate and wouldn't worry about his or her sexuality, unless of course their status of MP is used to further their desires. Politicians say different things to different people, however the British are no longer allowed to challenge them. You go to any of the "hustings" (they are all carefully orchestrated media events now) and ask a question and insist on it being answered you will be arrested.

 

[Bbucko]

MPs make many decisions on ethical issues. Things like abortion and euthanasia and animal experimentation and fox hunting and anti-smoking legislation. Most of them find most of these decisions difficult. I rather hope they do find them difficult - if they don't they are not thinking about them enough.

The issues around gay equality are lively ones in the UK. Politicians - including Grayling - are leading the way. They have passed anti-discrimination legislation. This is Grayling's track record. He has voted for policies which he knows are right. But this doesn't stop his realisation of the deep unease that many people in the country do feel - nor does it stop any unease he himself may (wrongly) feel.

UK B&B is usually a house where the owner and family live and rent out one to half a dozen rooms. Staying in a B&B is often quite a personal experience without the sort of privacy you would find in an hotel. Many B&Bs have rooms which are not ensuite for example. Many have thin walls. There will be people who run B&Bs who have religious objections to people engaging in gay sex. The law does not support their objections - the law is that if they offer rooms for rent they must accept people having gay sex in their home, and many will be very unhappy about this. Grayling has voted for the laws which give equality to gay people, but he is also aware of this difficult area. We have a case where the law is running ahead of much popular opinion.

His remarks were off camera - basically it was entrapment. They are just a few sentences. He makes a point off camera which he wouldn't have made on camera because in our soundbite age it is hard to convey nuanced messages. But in a way his off camera remarks illustrate the complexity of the issue. He does believe the law is right (and he voted for it) but he also believes that society hasn't caught up with it, that it will cause problems, that in this sense it is wrong. And there are real problems with forcing laws on people that a minority object to strongly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do just this if it is right, but we have to be aware of the problems also.

B&Bs are the same here; in fact, I believe by definition they are accommodations provided in one's home (as opposed to a hotel). When one decides to open one's home to strangers for (perhaps a minor) profit, it's on the assumption that one's privacy will be compromised. Hopefully the rewards of running a B&B compensate for that, otherwise why bother?

"Thin walls" is a really weak line of argument. It suggests that some experiences are acceptable while others are beyond the pale: if a mixed-race heterosexual couple were denied accommodation under the pretext of "thin walls" it would sound justifiably outrageous. Suggesting that some special case be allowed for the "ick factor" associated with homophobia is just absurd.

Besides, many hotels have exceptionally thin walls. I've frequently been privy to all manner of other's intimacies when staying in such places. It's part of the price paid when availing oneself of public accommodation.

Discrimination is discrimination: there is no third way in such matters. The extent to which Grayling was "entrapped" to express his discriminatory thoughts is largely irrelevant, except in as much as it highlights either his hypocrisy or deep-seated ambiguity with equal rights, or both.

 

[London_Calling]

Thought this may be of some interest....

http://mygayvote.co.uk/

 

[Jason]

Thought this may be of some interest....

http://mygayvote.co.uk/

The site gives no information about who "mygayvote" is or how they have come up with their figures. There is something so seriously wrong with the figures that presumably they have used garbage information. This is a wrong way to present and use statistics and appears to have no basis whatsoever in reality.

 

[London_Calling]

The site gives no information about who "mygayvote" is or how they have come up with their figures. There is something so seriously wrong with the figures that presumably they have used garbage information. This is a wrong way to present and use statistics and appears to have no basis whatsoever in reality.

I didn't take it too seriously, it was just something I'd come accross prior to reading this thread although I was a young gay man in my twenties living my life governed by the Tory party during the Eighties so I was not too surprised by these figures.

I have to say though that the Tory party's appalling past record on gay rights would not be the only thing stopping me from giving them my vote next month.