Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tories urge gay people to vote for them

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good on them! The Tories have evolved and left behind their nasty past (Norman Tebbit – that’s you that is). I vote for them now, and campaign for them too. In fact they selected another openly gay Tory for a safe seat only last week.

  2. I think the best thing that could happen would be hung parliament between them & the Lib Dems; a full Tory government would still make me pretty uncomfortable, “changed” or not.

    Just a shame I’m in one of the safest Labour seats in the country, really.

  3. There is only one issue that would make them the LGBT favorite – change the Civil partnership to marriage – as easy as that
    To change one name and the grass would be sunglass “green” on the Tory’s side.
    I do not see them as a liberal party at all – and conservative –they are !!

  4. Merseymike 30 Sep 2008, 4:51pm

    I’m not a Tory, and never have been, but I do think it is encouraging that there are clear signs of change and that I think it would be better for all of us if all parties were equally committed to gay equality

    But I still won’t be voting Tory!

  5. Merseymike 30 Sep 2008, 4:52pm

    I’m not a Tory and never will be – but I think any sign of change is encouraging and ideally all parties will be committed to equality.

    But I still won’t be voting Tory!

  6. john sexton 30 Sep 2008, 6:25pm

    We have heard them talk now lets see if they can deliver

  7. David Cameron has had a pretty good go at detoxifying the Tories, but the conscience votes over human fertilisation and embryology and abortion reform earlier this year show where the Tories’ hearts really lie. Cameron himself voted to retain Section 28. His track record speaks louder than his pandering to the pink vote now.

    Deep down, Tory MPs are still a bastion of small-minded, exclusive, middle-class values. A Conservative government would put at risk progress in law reform made over the last eleven years. Be not deceived. The Conservatives are still the Nasty Party.

  8. I don’t buy tory ‘new’ liberalism for a minute! I also don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. I also find it quite shocking how quickly people forget what it is like to live under a tory government.

    Pro-gay talk by the conservative party is denial of deep-seated prejudices they still have – and I include amongst this some of the gay members of the tory party – who have internalised the homophobia of days gone by.

    Yes – things are tough at the moment – and Labour seem weak – but for God sake – don’t trust the conservatives!!!

  9. SECTION 28! SECTION28! SECTION28! The tories are just wolves in sheeps clothing. It Labour who have made the difference here- getting rid of section 28, civil partnerships, changing adoption and discrimination laws! Its a record that in comparison to the tories you just can argue with.

    Even if you forget the things they did when last in power you have to ask what are they going to do for gay people now? As far as Margot James and Nick Herbert are concerned not alot probably. Braver and more courageous people than them have stood up for gay people before now and by the sounds of it they are reluctant to come out of the shadows and stand up for their fellow queers.

  10. rjb, rich and alex – I totally agree with you on this one. You can’t expect to pull the wool over our eyes to get the pink vote if you spent the 80’s creating section 28 and your old guard grass roots members wish it had never been repealed.
    The Tories may want to launder their image, but it’ll be quite a while before they get my pink vote. I simply don’t trust them, traditional Tory values are basically BNP ‘lite’. The moment they’re safely back in no.10 they’ll revert to type, just wait.

  11. Funny why do I not believe a single word they say? I think I still remember Section 28…..which they have still NOT apologised for!! When asked about it in Gay Times, Michael Howard said it was the best option at the time bollocks!! Like looking at a picture of two guys together will turn you all queer!

    They are full of shit!!

  12. well Im a bit skeptical wasn’t the labour slogan things can only get better and now look at good old gorden brown making a hash of it. How much change do we expect compared to how much change there will be

  13. Working as I do for a Conservative local authority, I estimate that it will take another 20 years for tolerance, let alone meaningful acceptance and equal treatment, to properly percolate through to all local councillors – and their influence, given their numbers and presence, can do more to hold back equality than national government or opposition.

  14. We don’t even need to hark back to Section 28 for evidence of the Tories’ homophobia. In 2007 two thirds of Conservative MPs voted against anti-discrimination laws for gays.

  15. This is just fishing for votes, if they get into power they will abandon all their empty promises…. They’re politicians. They’re born liars. Their track record is more revealing than their words, and their track record is abysmal.

    Gay and voting Tory is asking for trouble.

  16. Funny how there are so many uniformly anti-Tory voices here, much more so than on recent political threads, when the story is pro-Tory. Anyone with a cynical mind might think it has something to do with Derek Draper’s new rapid rebuttal of bloggers service he’s set up for the Labour Party mentioned here – http://www.order-order.com/2008/09/enemy-of-state.html

  17. If the Conservative party can move on why on earth can’t the old lumbering dinosaurs who wring their hands over policies 20 years ago like section 28? Of course young people have forgotten the governments of the 80s – it was a very long time ago and minds – in the conservative party and within society at large – have changed – a lot.

    So stop showing your (middle) ages by harking back to the last century and look forward. The Conservative party has captured the mood of the majority – and that includes us younger and maybe not so younger gays and we will be voting for them in our 10’s of 1000s.

    Gays have made huge strides in conservative party politics at both national and local government level and anyone that cannot see that should climb back up into their horse and trap and clip clop back to the dark days of industrial unrest, welfare dependents and horrible 70s/80s haircuts! :~)

  18. How can you say that Section 28 is years ago and long dead when it was only repealed in 2003! I’m 24 and grew up in an isolated town with only one secondary school and because of that cursed piece of legislation I had no idea what the word ‘Gay’ even MEANT!!! I had no idea why I couldn’t stop looking at boys; no idea why I cared more about my mate Nick than girls; no words to express or even comprehend what it was I felt since age 12. I only began to understand what I could be when I was 17 and free from the confines of school, having endured years of bullying for being ‘different’ in a way I didn’t even know!

    You can’t tell me that the legacy of that piece of legislation doesn’t live on, especially when the same MPs are still in power. Eddie, you’re clearly lucky. Unlike other young gay guys, you weren’t hurt by it.

  19. Tristan,
    Are you saying that because of a policy that Labour apparently took 2 terms to abolish (some priority!) and which nobody in the current Conservative leadership advocates, you will never vote Tory? Rather cutting off your nose to spite your face aren’t you?

    This victim mentality is precisely what Labour relies upon to retain its grip on various minority client groups, but doesn’t reflect reality.

  20. Eddie, I wasn’t even born when section 28 was introduced, the point is that the Conservatives have consistently voted against gay rights since then. Perhaps if it were true that after 1988 the Tories became a liberal gay-friendly party who fought for equality then you may have a point but it’s not. This is one ‘young gay’ who’d rather tear his eyes out before voting for Call Me Dave and his ilk.

  21. Chuckster,
    May I respectfully ask you to read post 7 by rjb who very clearly states that the current leader of the conservative party, Mr. Cameron, actually voted to retain Section 28? I think you’ll also find the previous leader, Mr. Howard was also quite keen on it as well.

  22. As Cameron said:

    “One can have lots of arguments about: ‘Should local authorities be telling, or the government be telling, what schools what should be taught in terms of sex education?’ But at the end of the day, one section of our community did feel discriminated against by Section 28, and so I’m glad on that basis that it’s gone.”

    Ben Summerskill, the director of Stonewall, paid tribute to the Tories for their recent stance on gay rights, adding: “It was the Conservative party who said these protections [in goods and services] were needed before a government that claims to have a long history of championing equality and gay people.”

    So there you go, Cameron changes and Summerskill respects it. It’s only the Labour sockpuppets desperate not to lose their victicrat client base who hark back to the olden days.

  23. “It’s only the Labour sockpuppets desperate not to lose their victicrat client base who hark back to the olden days.”

    Since when in is 2007 ‘olden days’? You seemed to omit the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of Tory MPs voted against protecting gays from discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

  24. 62 voted agains, not “the vast majority”, and nor is the party planning to repeal it.

  25. If that is the case, which I’ not arguing its not, then please tell me why he can say that now (as the time for voting draws near), yet when it came to actually voting on the subject he voted in favour of keeping it? Dont actions speak louder then words, or didn’t he notice the mass protests which were designed to highlight our discrimination? You can’t be arguing he didn’t know at the time it was a blatantly homophobic piece of legislation which he suddenly ‘saw the light’ about. I’m not arguing he can’t change, and I appreciate what Summerskill said – Any improvement from a party with there track record should be commended and encouraged – I just dont see how its possible to trust what he’s saying he genuinly means considering how he and his party have acted.

  26. You can see how all MPs voted on gay equality, abortion, and religious issues thanks to the Christian Institute’s website. Obviously the more crosses the better. You will note that even gay MPs such as Alan Duncan voted to retain the ban on gays in the armed forces. Cameron’s voting record leaves a lot to be desired.
    Overall, the Labour party has generally supported steps to equality every step of the way, the tories have resisted it, at almost every opportunity.

    http://www.christian.org.uk/mpvotes.php?selection=&value1=627&submit1=SHOW&value2=1

    Those who say the labour party took ages to repeal Section 28 should be reminded that the bill kept being scuppered in the house of Lords, mostly by hereditary peers, clerics and other hangers on, many of whom were thankfully swept away in the reforms some years ago.

    Section 28 may well be in the past. But I’m most concerned that the Tories show too much respect for faith groups – the main source of bigotry – and religious rights are likely to trump everyone else’s.

    They made some robust statements on ‘Sharia law’ yesterday, which is good. But only earlier this year the tories were the ones campaigning for the ‘need for the father’ in the embryo bill, and ignoring scientific evidence, and listening too much to christian fanatics.

  27. chuckster,

    The Conservative vote on the Equality Act (2007) was 29 in favour and 83 against. So that’s 26% to 74% respectively, which I’d consider a pretty large majority. So I was actually wrong before it’s not two-thirds of Tory MPs who think it’s OK to discriminate against gay people, it’s nearly three-quarters of them.

  28. Bill Perdue 1 Oct 2008, 2:51pm

    The Tories are rather limp on the question of GLBT equality. Their interests must lie elsewhere. In fact they’re mindless carbon copies, in more ways than one, of the bigotry of Republicans in the US, the Tories in Canada and the ‘Liberals’ Australia. In fact, they are enemy…

    They pander to christer bigots and then smirk as they ask for LGBT votes. It’s self destructive to vote for them.

  29. doesn’t her argument fall flat from the fact that the Tories have so far pledged not to lower taxes but to keep their spending to Labour’s level?

    Also. how so very Tory to appeal to people’s lower individualistic instincts! (ie our policies are good for you, not for the wider society). How divisive!

  30. I would NEVER vote Tory – any party that descends from Thatcher is NOT good, and never can be. Camerons as thick as two planks of wood, all he cares about is giving money to couples (ie, straight couples) who stay together for the kids and dont split up. The Tories would NEVER give gay people any more rights or help or support in a million years, they already resent the fact that we can have a civil partnership, members of the party have already said so! Ridiculous. If Cameron gets elected, I’m emmigrating!!

  31. Cameron’s background is PR. He is very good at spinning & giving themes and images, better than Labour. Understand that is ALL IT IS. Cameron is as right wing and bigoted as many in the Tory Party, he is the figurehead, masking all this, and his own nasty philosophy. Underneath the facade is a cabal of unpleasant, small minded bigots, such as Desmond Swaine (commons) & Tebbit (Lords). Voting records prove this. Cameron himself voted for section 28, wrote the most awful right-wing-rant of a manifesto for the Tories in 2005, OPEN YOUR EYES EVERYONE. It’s a con, a gigantic con. Marriage tax plans are not for us, nothing will be for us, the narative will be exclusive and narrow.
    Also, look at their councillors, they make Robinson in NI look like Tatchell. As for their MEPs, no better than Italian nationalists!

    Why on earth vote for them when the Liberal Democrats believe in their core in equality – full equality – for us, and are not afraid to say so, even if it means losing bigot votes. I’m voting for them myself, they actually belief in what they say, not pretend to.

  32. lee jones 1 Oct 2008, 8:27pm

    I will vote Labour out of gratitude for civil partnerships. For changing my life in the most meaningful way possible.

    From decriminalisation to legalisation, equality and finally recognition it’s only Labour Governments that have ever delivered for us, historically and consistently fighting prejudice. Isn’t David Cameron still making sneering jokes about Labour looking after one armed lesbians?

    If you were in Scotland in 2000/ 1 and saw the Brian Souter/ SNP/ Tory opposition to the repeal of Section 28 up there, it was worse than when we were media- invisible, the amount of homophobia being spewed out everywhere.

    We’d still be “criminal filth” if it wasn’t for brave people in the Labour Party and I shall never forget my debt to them.

  33. Ian Turner 1 Oct 2008, 11:50pm

    No chance. Lee Jones makes it totally clear why I will never vote tory. Their record on gay equality and misrepresentation has a 40 year history. Tory’s in the Lords would have scuppered the repeal of section 28 and rejected the the age of consent to 16. Labour used the parliament act to secure equality. Alan Duncan MP for Rutland gives no credit to Labour for their reformations of gay equality. He sit’s in front of his party on the front bench with so much admiration for Thatcher, Tebbitt. There are many who sit behind him that would gladly cheer his demise based on the fact that he is gay.

  34. Sister Mary Clarance 5 Oct 2008, 10:19am

    It good to see such overwhelming support from so many of the gay community towards the Labour government, at least the least politically astute are still supporting them come what may.

    Some, particularly those in London may have been unconvinced of their financial abilities after the announcement that the Olympic bill is running at £9.3bn (source bbc.co.uk), which is 4 time higher than the original cost used in the Olympic bid (a figure which the government referred to at the time as ‘robust’).

    Perhaps the diehard Labour dinosaurs would like to have a bit of a whip round to make up the shortfall, or maybe we could tap Northern Rock for a few quid – God knows they have had enough of our money.

  35. Sister Mary Clarance 5 Oct 2008, 10:22am

    Little wonder the finances are a bit skewed when Tessa Jowell’s grip on her own household finances is tenuous. Tessa, who has been married to her husband, David Mills, for 27 years, signed a mortgage deal with him in order to allow him to bring an alleged payment of £350,000 from Italy into Britain.

    Although she confirmed that she had signed the mortgage forms in 2000, she denied “categorically” that the money had been paid to her husband by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and media magnate, in return for Mr Mills’s support in two corruption cases. Although Mr Mills had written a letter apparently spelling out to his accountant how the money was given by the Berlusconi organisation in recognition for his services in the witness box, he subsequently retracted the account.

    “My husband pays the mortgage, so I was perfectly happy in the division of our finances to sign the charge,” she said. “It simply wasn’t a problem. It wasn’t unusual, it wasn’t improper and it certainly wasn’t illegal.”

    There’s a better idea. Die hard Labour dinosaurs keep your cash, we could send a government minister or two over to Italy to give false evidence in exchange for a car boot full of Lira – we could send Mandy, no wait … Harriet Harman has got an honest face – a former Solicitor General must be beyond reproach.

  36. Sister Mary Clarance 5 Oct 2008, 10:22am

    On the subject of Northern Rock, Alistair Darling, told parliament taxpayers’ money was safeguarded. “Bank of England lending is secured against assets held by Northern Rock. These assets include high quality mortgages with a significant protection margin built in and high quality securities with the highest quality of credit rating,” he said.

    Like Tessa, Alistair isn’t that sharp with figures because though the first tranche of the Bank’s emergency lending to Northern Rock in September has been secured against specific assets, the second tranche is secured only by a more general floating charge, which would mean the Bank would be vying with other creditors for repayment if Northern Rock failed. It is not clear how much money was loaned in each tranche, but the emergency loans are thought to have been for about £11bn each.

    An analysis by the Guardian newspaper has also discovered that Northern Rock has admitted being in breach of the conditions of the securities it has sold through its Jersey-based Granite Master Issuer, the company which packages and sells mortgage backed securities, but it has decided to ignore the breach.

    A examination of Northern Rock’s books has found over 70% of its mortgage portfolio (£53bn) – is not owned by the bank, but by an offshore company, Granite. This should be a concern for the Bank and the Treasury (but apparently seems not to be) particularly if the emergency loans have in effect been used to shore up Granite rather than Northern Rock. The government will received no preferential treatment over anyone else owed money if everything goes tits up (again).

    Incidentally, the government has announced its new £200m package of measures designed to prevent some of the most vulnerable families losing their homes and experiencing the trauma of repossession, whilst on the other hand the number of homes repossessed by Northern Rock soared by more than 70% to 3710 in the past six months as the bank came under state ownership. So it would appear a clear case of failing to practice what you’re preaching to the wider mortgage sector to help people stay in their homes.

    Lets just hope none of you die hard Labour dinosaurs are mortgaged with Northern Rock.

  37. Sister Mary Clarance 5 Oct 2008, 10:23am

    Now getting back to the former, Solicitor General, Harriet, potential witness for the defence in Italy – Miss Harman received £5,000 towards the cost of her leadership campaign from Janet Kidd (a secretary), who was used by David Abrahams as the conduit for a series of donations to Labour.

    Initially Harriet, who has an honest face if nothing else, issued a statement through her office that, “We have never known of any involvement by David Abrahams. Neither Chris Leslie nor Janet Kidd mentioned him.” When laying herself open to the mercy of the House she stated she acted “within both the letter and spirit of the law”.

    Some time later after having had her collar felt by Scotland Yard, Harman revealed it had been Brown’s campaign coordinator who had recommended she seek a donation from the proxy of David Abrahams, the controversial businessman who has secretly bankrolled the party with £600,000. She disclosed that former minister Chris Leslie, who was running Brown’s leadership campaign, had suggested she seek a donation from Janet Kidd, Abrahams’ secretary – despite having himself rejected her money for the Brown campaign.

    In view of her complete inability to stick to the plan when put under a bit of pressure by the boys in blue, she’s the last person you’d want to be out in the West End with on a Saturday night with 3 ecstasy stuffed down your pants, let alone fundraising for the British Olympics by lying in the witness box at Bernasconi’s in Italy. Far better surely that she sticks to what she knows best – running this country into the ground.

    Rest assured though die hard Labour dinosaurs, she might have lied about EVERYTHING else, but she’s not lying about her commitment to equality (honest).

  38. If all of the members of the Tory party who have voted against gay reform publish apologies in national newspapers, and promise to do better – such as pushing for more acceptance of homosexuality in school curriculums and more stringent measures against homophobia in the media, then it might be possible to view Margot James’ urge for gay men to vote Tory with a more credibility.

    As it is – this is too little too late. They’ll NEVER get my vote.
    And their appalling record on gay issues is just one reason out of many. They are and always will be the nasty party.

  39. Sister Mary Clarance 5 Oct 2008, 11:05pm

    On the subject of Mandy ‘Nive Lives’ Mandelson, when everything is truly turning to shit in the financial sector, who better to enter stage right than that bastion of financial propriety than Mandy Madelson ….

    Having received a £373 000 loan from Geoffrey Robinson, then Paymaster General, to buy his swanky Notting Hill home, which he forgot to mention to all and sundry, not least the Britannia Building Society (as yet to go bust), his department was then asked to scrutinise the business activities of Mr Robinson.

    Whilst most normal folk would consider it prudent to mention in passing that perhaps there may be a slight conflict of interest, Mandy was clearly away with the fairies, so to speak. Not withstanding Tony Blair’s assurances that Labour would be “whiter than white” in contrast to the Conservative government that preceded theirs, Mandy’s lips stayed tighter than a duck’s arse.

    Despite the many requests that he should fall on his sword, disappointingly we had to settle for his resignation.

    In the face of all logic, he was then hauled back to government only a short time later. No sooner was he back than he was off again. After being caught read-handed – apologies his ‘private secretary’ (that’s a man that does everything for him – including wiping his arse) got caught red-handed flogging a passport to an Indian billionaire for a million pound donation to the millennium dome.

    Possibly in hindsight we could get said Indian businessman to bail out the sinking Olympic albatross hanging around all our necks. I’m on the edge of my seat waiting to see his next dishonest dealing.

  40. polly styrene 7 Oct 2008, 9:27am

    Strange that Margot James is calling herself a lesbian now when two years ago she said this about herself to the Observer:-

    I’m a bit unusual,’ she said. ‘I truly don’t see myself as a gay this or lesbian that; I think it’s all very limiting. But that’s not to say that I don’t respect people whose instincts and being and choice are very strictly for one gender or the other. I just hate the sort of feeling that if you’re not in the straight, accepted-norm box, then you must be gay. I don’t think that’s true and it leads to a sense of pressure that a lot of people, who other people think are gay, don’t necessarily feel comfortable with.’

    Internalised homophobia? Bisexual? You decide.

  41. Torys want to bring back fox hunting.

  42. Labour has done so much for the gay community and many of those things have changed my life for the better. The tories have resisted moves towards equality and do not have an understanding of it. Even if Cameron has changed his formerly homophobic ways what about all those old homophobes in the party? There is still so much to achieve in fighting homophobia, not least in schools, and no one can seriously believe that the tories would do anything. There is even a risk that we would get backwards steps with them. Labour, Lib Dem and Green are the only credible options for gay voters.

  43. Sister Mary Clarence 7 Oct 2008, 8:24pm

    So does Kate Hoey Anne

  44. Ivor Biggun 13 Feb 2009, 2:04pm

    Maybe it’s because I’m not old enough to remember ‘the bad old days’ but I simply refuse to vote on gay issues alone.

    Why the hell are so many of you politically ‘liberal’ just because we were born gay? I had no choice in my genes, I do have a choice in my ‘beliefs’.

    If they’re softening their stance on my lifestyle and sexual make up that’s all well and good but, in the main, I want low taxes and harsh sentances for violent criminals so I’ll vote Tory thanks.

    I don’t feel at all embarassed by that.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all