Reader comments · Comment: Why gays should be embracing David Cameron · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Why gays should be embracing David Cameron

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t trust ANYONE who still refers to us as “the gays” as we were in your 5th paragraph.

  2. Mark Bennett 17 Aug 2006, 9:45am

    This appears to be the same Conservative Party which is now led by the same David Cameron who wrote this in the Oxford Journal in May 2000.”The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their ‘fringe’ agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools.”Same old Tories.

  3. Why should we vote for the Conservative Party, I have heard nothing from DC to give me the confidence to vote for them. As I understand the Conservative Party wish to do away with the European Human Rights Act (Yes I know Labour wish to change it, we will still have our rights), and introduce a Bill of Rights such as they have in America and we all know the history of the Blacks and continuing unfriendly treatment of LGBTT people in that country. So, until I hear evidence from the Conservative Party that they will not annul the recent legislation passed by Parliament, I shall continue to vote for Labour

  4. Despite the fact that Labour repealed section 28, I can not help but think that it took them such a long time – 6 and a half years, Section 28 finally being repealed on 18th November 2003. John Prescott, who actively associates himself with Philip Anschutz who helped fund Amendment 2, a ballot initiative to overturn a Colorado state law protecting gay rights. Ruth Kelly who has failed consistently to support a single act for gay rights since the Labour victory in 1997, and who refuses to comment on whether homosexuality is a sin. Gordon Brown has also failed to support gay rights since 1997, apparently as he is “too busy”. Now I’m not one to comment on their personal view, but remember that these people are senior figures in Government. For a supposedly gay-friendly party, I can not help but think that they’re a bit of a red-herring.Now I know the Tories were not exactly leaping at the prospect of enhanced gay rights during their term, but at least you know where they stood. New Labour is playing a dangerous game – pretending to support the gay community when in fact their true intentions are shrouded in mystery. We should not be lured into a false sense of security by any means.

  5. “For the first time in its history, the Tory party has out gay MPs. “It’s not the first time. In mid 90’s (during the Major’s last years), Michael Brown was an openly gay Tory MP after being outed by the News of the World. “It is interesting to look again at the constituencies Herbert and Afriyie won. Hampshire and Berkshire are hardly politically correct, left-wing or radical areas of the country.”yes, they’re the kind of places that would elect a monkey with a blue rosette.”And Adam Rickitt – no man can spend that much time with his top off and not be counted as an honourary gay.”and so? this comment can make me think the article is not a serious piece.”The Labour party have never actively sought gay candidates to run for them. “maybe because they don’t need it. Labour gay members are already willing to stand in selection contests without being told to do so.And well, if you look at Camerons’ words he often mentions encouraging women and ethnic minorities to be selected whilst gay candidates aren’t usually mentioned.Look at today’s papers: his main aim is to have more female MPs, not more gay MPs.So the same of Labour.”Labour somewhat cynically place black and Asian candidates in constituencies with large ethic populations”maybe a bit of research would be nice here. You would have discovered there’s also Parmjit Dhanda in Glaucester which is not a constituency with a large ethnic minority popoluation.Then what do you mean with “place”? It’s not the Labour Party that “place” candidates, it’s the local parties’ members who selected them”The party have a mixed record when it comes to picking gay candidates.”evidence of that?”It was the bravery of Chris Smith outing himself that led to more acceptance for gay people among Labour activists. “”The A-list is indicative of the sort of people the ‘new’ Tories “new tories? All people in the A List were also in the old (long) approved list.”David Cameron is reaching out to gay and lesbian people, not in a tokenist ‘we must have some gays’ type of way”It’s exactly what he’s doing (as Labour did with female candidates): the search of a %, “we’ve 10% gay candiates, 50% women and so on”

  6. Anonymous 8 Sep 2007, 1:46am

    ‘The old days of section 28’what kind of demented fool are you?Have you been in Gran Canaria for the past month? Have you not heard him returning to type? and I suppose the likes of Redwood…. have undergone intensive inclusive love brainwashing?They are desperatly crawling for votes knowing full well their right wing fanatic followers are not going to vote labour. Whats your excuse? urch…

  7. Pete, we don’t need an American bill of rights. It was the British who first introduced a bill of rights in 1688, we were the innovators, not America. Democracy began in Greece, not the U.S. The U.S. constitution states that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, but at the time it was written by heterosexual men, it was the destiny of heterosexuals not gay men and women or slaves. Its a farce and a bleary-eyed notion at that. The majority of Americans do NOT believe in full equality, believe me. If that were the case, they would have been in the vanguard and surpassed Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa. America will NEVER achieve what these countries have done in our lifetime and neither will the UK. Robert, ex-pat Brit.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.